why is this gen the only gen ever with things to complain about

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Vinegar_Strokes
Vinegar_Strokes

3401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Vinegar_Strokes
Member since 2010 • 3401 Posts

i hate this gen.

think about it.

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

in previous gens every game was amazing, innovative and unique.brimming with hour upon hour of fresh, new, varied content and gameplay that was never repetitive or dumbed down. every new game was its own new genre, no game could ever be accused of being a rehash or a hastily rushed sequel. games were also much much cheaper as publishers and developers didn't care about money or sales the were just bothered about making gamers happy. where as these days devs are lazy sell outs and publisher only care about are the new cancer of gaming 'the casual gamer'

before this gen these casuals did not even exist. every gamer was hardcore, in fact way more hardcore than anyone gaming today is. nobody bought games just for 'fun' games used to be bought as interllectual challenges. this casual gamer has suddenly started to buy lots of consoles. which in turn has affected the PC games market. as console sales have dirrectly led the the dumbing down of former classics. this is becouse in previous gens nobody ever bough consoles or console games and they were not very popular at all.

Avatar image for slimjimbadboy
slimjimbadboy

1731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 slimjimbadboy
Member since 2006 • 1731 Posts

You have to do a little more research. And ET was a horrible game.

Avatar image for Harisemo
Harisemo

4133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Harisemo
Member since 2010 • 4133 Posts

not sure if serious.....

Avatar image for meetroid8
meetroid8

21152

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 meetroid8
Member since 2005 • 21152 Posts
What point are you trying to make TC?
Avatar image for rangegear
rangegear

3029

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 rangegear
Member since 2008 • 3029 Posts
Hmm...Interesting.
Avatar image for heretrix
heretrix

37881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#6 heretrix
Member since 2004 • 37881 Posts

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

Vinegar_Strokes

I know you are joking.....

Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
joke topic? every gen has crap games
Avatar image for gmaster456
gmaster456

7569

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#8 gmaster456
Member since 2008 • 7569 Posts
How old are you? Were you even alive last gen?
Avatar image for BPoole96
BPoole96

22818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 BPoole96
Member since 2008 • 22818 Posts

I was not aware that I was more hardcore last gen than I am this gen. Thanks for the info TC!

Avatar image for VALikimlav
VALikimlav

324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 VALikimlav
Member since 2010 • 324 Posts
Don't think TC is serious at all
Avatar image for johnlennon28
johnlennon28

2158

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 johnlennon28
Member since 2008 • 2158 Posts
if I were to rate it : old gen = 10, this current gen 8.5..... you guys stop denying it to yourself, this gen is all about whats easy to sell, old gen devs had more passion in making games imo
Avatar image for Funconsole
Funconsole

3223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 Funconsole
Member since 2009 • 3223 Posts
What happened is all the "hardcore" gamers got kicked out of their mother's basement...
Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
DJ-Lafleur

35604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#13 DJ-Lafleur
Member since 2007 • 35604 Posts

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

Vinegar_Strokes

...

Avatar image for zaibutzu
zaibutzu

1277

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

#14 zaibutzu
Member since 2004 • 1277 Posts

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

DJ-Lafleur

...

HAHA. TC definitely needs to watch an episode of AVGN.

Avatar image for good_sk8er7
good_sk8er7

4327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#15 good_sk8er7
Member since 2009 • 4327 Posts

I actually like this gen a lot. There's been some great games, and while there isn't as much originality as there was in previous gens, the gameplay, physics, and graphics are leagues ahead of what was to offer last gen. Most genres have just pretty much reached a very high level of polish

Avatar image for NaveedLife
NaveedLife

17179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 NaveedLife
Member since 2010 • 17179 Posts

CLEARLY a sarcastic post. And I agree with his sarcasm for the MOST part ;).

Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#17 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

While every generation had a wide array of really bad games, I agree with TC that this generation has been the biggest drain on consumers' wallets.

Besides the games and consoles going up in price, the price gouging in the used game markets, various fees from various 'services,' and day-one overpriced or otherwise unreasonable dlc pass and stuff like that.

Avatar image for TheMoreYouOwn
TheMoreYouOwn

3927

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 TheMoreYouOwn
Member since 2010 • 3927 Posts

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

DJ-Lafleur

...

AVGN owns all.

Avatar image for TheArGaia
TheArGaia

629

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 TheArGaia
Member since 2011 • 629 Posts
People are taking things for granted and are getting greedy. Personally, I'd play Mario 64 over Crysis 2 any day.
Avatar image for ianuilliam
ianuilliam

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 ianuilliam
Member since 2006 • 4955 Posts

not sure if serious.....

Harisemo

Yeah... I'm hoping that the entire OP is a sarcastic jab at the people who complain about things ("Games cost too much this gen" "Games are too short this gen" etc) when in reality games are longer, cheaper (factoring in the actual buying power of the dollar), and of at least as high quality as in any past gens...

Avatar image for deactivated-5e7be39d87e0b
deactivated-5e7be39d87e0b

4624

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#22 deactivated-5e7be39d87e0b
Member since 2005 • 4624 Posts

What happened is all the "hardcore" gamers got kicked out of their mother's basement...Funconsole

They were also forced to get real jobs and lose their virginity...

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

45413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#23 lamprey263  Online
Member since 2006 • 45413 Posts
a while ago someone posted links to letters to a gaming magazine from the late 1980s, and it was just as fanboyish as the biggest fanboys these days, attacking the GameBoy (if I remember correctly), think the point of the person posting this was that fanboys really haven't changed. Anyhow, fanboys are all about your favorite game sucks, this game is better... it's bound to happen when people are passionate about stuff.
Avatar image for WreckEm711
WreckEm711

7362

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 WreckEm711
Member since 2010 • 7362 Posts

Good thread TC, shame is sailed right over most peoples heads

Avatar image for cainetao11
cainetao11

38053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 77

User Lists: 1

#25 cainetao11
Member since 2006 • 38053 Posts
if I were to rate it : old gen = 10, this current gen 8.5..... you guys stop denying it to yourself, this gen is all about whats easy to sell, old gen devs had more passion in making games imojohnlennon28
Old gen games didnt cost as much to develop. Much more important to make capital back this gen. Hence go with what the market, in other words gamers, have shown them what will be bought consistently.
Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#26 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

not sure if serious.....

ianuilliam

Yeah... I'm hoping that the entire OP is a sarcastic jab at the people who complain about things ("Games cost too much this gen" "Games are too short this gen" etc) when in reality games are longer, cheaper (factoring in the actual buying power of the dollar), and of at least as high quality as in any past gens...

What games were you playing last gen?!

Unless you spent the entire time playing Big Rigs and Max Payne I don't see how you could possibly say that the games this gen are less buggy or longer.

There are some games this gen that are just as long (if not longer) than some of the epics of last gen but even with those, you have to buy another $50 worth of DLC. So yes with gta4 and all the dlc, it might be a little longer than gta3, but it would've cost the average gta fanboy $100.

And if you really think games are less buggy this gen, you have obviously not played Fallout New Vegas.

Avatar image for nintendo-4life
nintendo-4life

18281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 nintendo-4life
Member since 2004 • 18281 Posts
Some may not get the point of this thread. But this is absolutely genius. Great job TC.
Avatar image for ianuilliam
ianuilliam

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 ianuilliam
Member since 2006 • 4955 Posts

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="Harisemo"]

not sure if serious.....

LeifLongbottom

Yeah... I'm hoping that the entire OP is a sarcastic jab at the people who complain about things ("Games cost too much this gen" "Games are too short this gen" etc) when in reality games are longer, cheaper (factoring in the actual buying power of the dollar), and of at least as high quality as in any past gens...

What games were you playing last gen?!

Unless you spent the entire time playing Big Rigs and Max Payne I don't see how you could possibly say that the games this gen are less buggy or longer.

There are some games this gen that are just as long (if not longer) than some of the epics of last gen but even with those, you have to buy another $50 worth of DLC. So yes with gta4 and all the dlc, it might be a little longer than gta3, but it would've cost the average gta fanboy $100.

And if you really think games are less buggy this gen, you have obviously not played Fallout New Vegas.

People complained about Heavenly Sword being too short... only 6-10 hours, with no multiplayer. Yet last gen, how long was God of War? 5-8 hours? People that think games this gen are shorter are comparing different types of games. If you compare an RPG from previous gens to an action game this gen, yeah, its shorter. But action games have always been from a few to a dozen or so hours. Contra 3 on the SNES was at MOST a few hours, but it can be beaten as quick as 16 minutes. And since you mentioned Fallout, how long was fallout 1? Not as long as Fallout 3. You could beat it in 10 minutes or so, but even not doing that, it didn't take that long to play through.

Sure, some games are buggy. Large open-world games like Oblivion or New Vegas are always going to have their fair share of glitches. Morrowind was full of em. The more complex games get, the more likely they are to have bugs that make it through to the final game, but other than a very few rare occasions, I haven't run into anything game breaking. Certainly not any more than previous gens.

No, what I've seen this gen is a lot of great games, with incredible levels of production value, and despite costing the devs more than ever before to make, costing less considering inflation than in any past gens.

Avatar image for kumitekumite
kumitekumite

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 kumitekumite
Member since 2011 • 166 Posts

Back in 1995, people hated the Virtual Boy, with passion. It broke your neck and burned you eyes off at the same time.

Avatar image for Arach666
Arach666

23285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#30 Arach666
Member since 2009 • 23285 Posts

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

Vinegar_Strokes

Yeah,Big Rigs was pretty good,GOTY material even.

Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#31 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Yeah... I'm hoping that the entire OP is a sarcastic jab at the people who complain about things ("Games cost too much this gen" "Games are too short this gen" etc) when in reality games are longer, cheaper (factoring in the actual buying power of the dollar), and of at least as high quality as in any past gens...

ianuilliam

What games were you playing last gen?!

Unless you spent the entire time playing Big Rigs and Max Payne I don't see how you could possibly say that the games this gen are less buggy or longer.

There are some games this gen that are just as long (if not longer) than some of the epics of last gen but even with those, you have to buy another $50 worth of DLC. So yes with gta4 and all the dlc, it might be a little longer than gta3, but it would've cost the average gta fanboy $100.

And if you really think games are less buggy this gen, you have obviously not played Fallout New Vegas.

People complained about Heavenly Sword being too short... only 6-10 hours, with no multiplayer. Yet last gen, how long was God of War? 5-8 hours? People that think games this gen are shorter are comparing different types of games. If you compare an RPG from previous gens to an action game this gen, yeah, its shorter. But action games have always been from a few to a dozen or so hours. Contra 3 on the SNES was at MOST a few hours, but it can be beaten as quick as 16 minutes. And since you mentioned Fallout, how long was fallout 1? Not as long as Fallout 3. You could beat it in 10 minutes or so, but even not doing that, it didn't take that long to play through.

Sure, some games are buggy. Large open-world games like Oblivion or New Vegas are always going to have their fair share of glitches. Morrowind was full of em. The more complex games get, the more likely they are to have bugs that make it through to the final game, but other than a very few rare occasions, I haven't run into anything game breaking. Certainly not any more than previous gens.

No, what I've seen this gen is a lot of great games, with incredible levels of production value, and despite costing the devs more than ever before to make, costing less considering inflation than in any past gens.

But I wasn't comparing action games to rpgs, in fact I was making the comparison within the same franchise: the fact that gta3 was longer (and had better gameplay options) than gta4... unless maybe you paid $100 overall for the game and the dlc. But even then, if you're doing the speed playthrough and not messing around with the tedious dates, you'll definitely be playing gta3 longer.

I played Heavenly Sword and (while I didn't clock it with a stopwatch) it felt considerably shorter than any of the god of war games and it felt more repetitive too: doing the same things to kill the same guys. Not that the GoW games are a wellspring of diverse gameplay but you had more than a dozen enemies.

And yes, I expect any large open world game to be buggy but Fallout New Vegas is just plain broken. Not only that but it seems that most games I get at launch need to be patched which usually isn't a big deal for me or anyone that has their console hooked up to the internet. It's just that it seems that since they've gotten the ability to patch games after launch, publishers are taking undue advantage of that and launching games that should really have more work done on them. Sure we had buggy games in the past but nowhere near this many and nowhere nearly as bad. It can be frustrating when you buy a game for $60 and it ends up being a complete mess for the next 6 months.

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
mariokart64fan

20828

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 101

User Lists: 1

#32 mariokart64fan
Member since 2003 • 20828 Posts

well this gen is easily the worst besides the wii , the other two throw hundreds of unoriginal fpses out the door and nothing much else with a few exceptions in between

at least last gen fpses were long and fun-see timesplitters

and we had some under the radar games such as state of emergency chase holly wood stunt driver and loads of fun games overall

this gen also lacks many split screen titles that i am not a fan of , you could have your online but taking out the splitscreen is a total failure on the developers , come 2 -5 yrs after release these servers end up dead or non -functional at all whats left for us gamers to do keep playing the lame singleplayer mode i did nt think so

Avatar image for ianuilliam
ianuilliam

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 ianuilliam
Member since 2006 • 4955 Posts

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

What games were you playing last gen?!

Unless you spent the entire time playing Big Rigs and Max Payne I don't see how you could possibly say that the games this gen are less buggy or longer.

There are some games this gen that are just as long (if not longer) than some of the epics of last gen but even with those, you have to buy another $50 worth of DLC. So yes with gta4 and all the dlc, it might be a little longer than gta3, but it would've cost the average gta fanboy $100.

And if you really think games are less buggy this gen, you have obviously not played Fallout New Vegas.

LeifLongbottom

People complained about Heavenly Sword being too short... only 6-10 hours, with no multiplayer. Yet last gen, how long was God of War? 5-8 hours? People that think games this gen are shorter are comparing different types of games. If you compare an RPG from previous gens to an action game this gen, yeah, its shorter. But action games have always been from a few to a dozen or so hours. Contra 3 on the SNES was at MOST a few hours, but it can be beaten as quick as 16 minutes. And since you mentioned Fallout, how long was fallout 1? Not as long as Fallout 3. You could beat it in 10 minutes or so, but even not doing that, it didn't take that long to play through.

Sure, some games are buggy. Large open-world games like Oblivion or New Vegas are always going to have their fair share of glitches. Morrowind was full of em. The more complex games get, the more likely they are to have bugs that make it through to the final game, but other than a very few rare occasions, I haven't run into anything game breaking. Certainly not any more than previous gens.

No, what I've seen this gen is a lot of great games, with incredible levels of production value, and despite costing the devs more than ever before to make, costing less considering inflation than in any past gens.

But I wasn't comparing action games to rpgs, in fact I was making the comparison within the same franchise: the fact that gta3 was longer (and had better gameplay options) than gta4... unless maybe you paid $100 overall for the game and the dlc. But even then, if you're doing the speed playthrough and not messing around with the tedious dates, you'll definitely be playing gta3 longer.

I played Heavenly Sword and (while I didn't clock it with a stopwatch) it felt considerably shorter than any of the god of war games and it felt more repetitive too: doing the same things to kill the same guys. Not that the GoW games are a wellspring of diverse gameplay but you had more than a dozen enemies.

And yes, I expect any large open world game to be buggy but Fallout New Vegas is just plain broken. Not only that but it seems that most games I get at launch need to be patched which usually isn't a big deal for me or anyone that has their console hooked up to the internet. It's just that it seems that since they've gotten the ability to patch games after launch, publishers are taking undue advantage of that and launching games that should really have more work done on them. Sure we had buggy games in the past but nowhere near this many and nowhere nearly as bad. It can be frustrating when you buy a game for $60 and it ends up being a complete mess for the next 6 months.

I didn't play GTA3 (or Vice City or SA) for more than a few minutes. I did make it through GTA4 (the main game, not the expansions) and managed to get all the single player trophies except hunting down all the pigeons (and therefore also the 100% completion) and beating the main story in under 30 hours. 30 hours is a pretty long game, for a non-rpg. Was there more to do in previous GTAs? Maybe. But GTA4 is still a pretty big game, with pretty high production costs. GTA3 cost $50 in 2001, GTA4 cost $60 in 2008. According to the BLS, $50 in 2001 = $60.79 in 2008. The game may have been a little shorter, but it certainly didn't cost more, at least to the consumer. It cost the devs and publisher more to make.

As for Heavenly Sword vs GoW. I missed GoW on teh PS2, but I did get the collection for PS3. I played GoW exactly twice to get the plat trophy. First playthrough took about 7 hours, second playthrough took 3. The enemies from start to finish are the same. Or rather, you just run into stronger versions of the same enemies. I'm not knocking teh game, I enjoyed it. But when it came out last gen, it was praised as one of the greatest. Heavnly Sword comes out this gen. Just as long, or longer. Just as much or more gameplay variety (the Kai sniping levels with motion controlled aftertouch arrow guiding, for instance, was a great change of pace). Incredible production value. The acting and facial capture was absolutely incredible, and all the visuals were just stunning. And it gets blasted as being a complete rip off because it's only 6-10 hours. Which is what action games have averaged pretty much since the PS1/N64 days. In the NES-SNES eras, they were considerably shorter.

And F:NV aside, as I haven't played that one yet (got plenty of backlog this gen, so I figured I'd wait for a GotY edition--which is a great way to avoid the cost of dlc, btw), it's not that games are more buggy this gen because devs are relying on the ability to apply post-release patches. It's that in previous gens, those bugs and glitches would just stay in the games. Yeah, there are a lot of games that get patched to remove bugs post-release. But that doesn't mean that there are more bugs this gen. It just means that finally this gen, they have a way to do something about it. PC games have been getting patches for years and years, there just was never a way to distribute patches on consoles before, so they just waited for a new version, greatest hits or the like, to fix them.

Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#34 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]People complained about Heavenly Sword being too short... only 6-10 hours, with no multiplayer. Yet last gen, how long was God of War? 5-8 hours? People that think games this gen are shorter are comparing different types of games. If you compare an RPG from previous gens to an action game this gen, yeah, its shorter. But action games have always been from a few to a dozen or so hours. Contra 3 on the SNES was at MOST a few hours, but it can be beaten as quick as 16 minutes. And since you mentioned Fallout, how long was fallout 1? Not as long as Fallout 3. You could beat it in 10 minutes or so, but even not doing that, it didn't take that long to play through.

Sure, some games are buggy. Large open-world games like Oblivion or New Vegas are always going to have their fair share of glitches. Morrowind was full of em. The more complex games get, the more likely they are to have bugs that make it through to the final game, but other than a very few rare occasions, I haven't run into anything game breaking. Certainly not any more than previous gens.

No, what I've seen this gen is a lot of great games, with incredible levels of production value, and despite costing the devs more than ever before to make, costing less considering inflation than in any past gens.

ianuilliam

But I wasn't comparing action games to rpgs, in fact I was making the comparison within the same franchise: the fact that gta3 was longer (and had better gameplay options) than gta4... unless maybe you paid $100 overall for the game and the dlc. But even then, if you're doing the speed playthrough and not messing around with the tedious dates, you'll definitely be playing gta3 longer.

I played Heavenly Sword and (while I didn't clock it with a stopwatch) it felt considerably shorter than any of the god of war games and it felt more repetitive too: doing the same things to kill the same guys. Not that the GoW games are a wellspring of diverse gameplay but you had more than a dozen enemies.

And yes, I expect any large open world game to be buggy but Fallout New Vegas is just plain broken. Not only that but it seems that most games I get at launch need to be patched which usually isn't a big deal for me or anyone that has their console hooked up to the internet. It's just that it seems that since they've gotten the ability to patch games after launch, publishers are taking undue advantage of that and launching games that should really have more work done on them. Sure we had buggy games in the past but nowhere near this many and nowhere nearly as bad. It can be frustrating when you buy a game for $60 and it ends up being a complete mess for the next 6 months.

I didn't play GTA3 (or Vice City or SA) for more than a few minutes. I did make it through GTA4 (the main game, not the expansions) and managed to get all the single player trophies except hunting down all the pigeons (and therefore also the 100% completion) and beating the main story in under 30 hours. 30 hours is a pretty long game, for a non-rpg. Was there more to do in previous GTAs? Maybe. But GTA4 is still a pretty big game, with pretty high production costs. GTA3 cost $50 in 2001, GTA4 cost $60 in 2008. According to the BLS, $50 in 2001 = $60.79 in 2008. The game may have been a little shorter, but it certainly didn't cost more, at least to the consumer. It cost the devs and publisher more to make.

As for Heavenly Sword vs GoW. I missed GoW on teh PS2, but I did get the collection for PS3. I played GoW exactly twice to get the plat trophy. First playthrough took about 7 hours, second playthrough took 3. The enemies from start to finish are the same. Or rather, you just run into stronger versions of the same enemies. I'm not knocking teh game, I enjoyed it. But when it came out last gen, it was praised as one of the greatest. Heavnly Sword comes out this gen. Just as long, or longer. Just as much or more gameplay variety (the Kai sniping levels with motion controlled aftertouch arrow guiding, for instance, was a great change of pace). Incredible production value. The acting and facial capture was absolutely incredible, and all the visuals were just stunning. And it gets blasted as being a complete rip off because it's only 6-10 hours. Which is what action games have averaged pretty much since the PS1/N64 days. In the NES-SNES eras, they were considerably shorter.

And F:NV aside, as I haven't played that one yet (got plenty of backlog this gen, so I figured I'd wait for a GotY edition--which is a great way to avoid the cost of dlc, btw), it's not that games are more buggy this gen because devs are relying on the ability to apply post-release patches. It's that in previous gens, those bugs and glitches would just stay in the games. Yeah, there are a lot of games that get patched to remove bugs post-release. But that doesn't mean that there are more bugs this gen. It just means that finally this gen, they have a way to do something about it. PC games have been getting patches for years and years, there just was never a way to distribute patches on consoles before, so they just waited for a new version, greatest hits or the like, to fix them.

It shouldn't mean that there are more bugs but there are. And while I have been patching my pc games for years, I have never played a game as broken as Fallout New Vegas. It even surpasses Final Liberation. Play it unpatched and you'll see what it was like to play the game up until maybe a month or two ago when they finally started addressing the bugs instead of the benign exploits.

It seems like you missed a lot of big games from last gen. Before you even start talking about gta, you need to play through San Andreas. In fact, you should play San Andreas just for the experience. Once you're done you will see what I mean: that gta 4 (even with all the dlc) is a dwarf in comparison by every feature except graphics and draw distance.

And do yourself a favor and don't go by the BLS. Their statistics is one of the reasons there's such a big difference between what most people earn and what the top 1% earn: at least, it's what they use to justify their greed. In other words, it's a tool for rich people to misdirect the poor people so they don't set up a guillotine on Wall street.

The fact remains that gamers of this gen are getting less bang for their buck and are being asked for considerably more bucks overall.

Avatar image for shinigami-uk
shinigami-uk

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 shinigami-uk
Member since 2006 • 148 Posts
Internet can pretty much be accessed anywhere and anytime, therefore its easier to moan and complain about something.
Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
Dragerdeifrit

769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#36 Dragerdeifrit
Member since 2010 • 769 Posts

i blame CoD

Avatar image for Chiddaling
Chiddaling

9106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#37 Chiddaling
Member since 2008 • 9106 Posts
Because gaming is dying.
Avatar image for ianuilliam
ianuilliam

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 ianuilliam
Member since 2006 • 4955 Posts

It shouldn't mean that there are more bugs but there are. And while I have been patching my pc games for years, I have never played a game as broken as Fallout New Vegas. It even surpasses Final Liberation. Play it unpatched and you'll see what it was like to play the game up until maybe a month or two ago when they finally started addressing the bugs instead of the benign exploits.LeifLongbottom

You just keep bringing up the same one game. One game being a buggy mess is not proof that games overall are more buggy this gen than in previous ones.

It seems like you missed a lot of big games from last gen. Before you even start talking about gta, you need to play through San Andreas. In fact, you should play San Andreas just for the experience. Once you're done you will see what I mean: that gta 4 (even with all the dlc) is a dwarf in comparison by every feature except graphics and draw distance.LeifLongbottom

I played SA long enough to get bored by it. The additional motivation of trophies was enough to get me through GTA4, but had it been significantly longer, I'm sure I'd have given up on it too.

And do yourself a favor and don't go by the BLS. Their statistics is one of the reasons there's such a big difference between what most people earn and what the top 1% earn: at least, it's what they use to justify their greed. In other words, it's a tool for rich people to misdirect the poor people so they don't set up a guillotine on Wall street.

The fact remains that gamers of this gen are getting less bang for their buck and are being asked for considerably more bucks overall.

LeifLongbottom

So, wait... are you trying to say that inflation doesn't exist? I mean, for your claim to be true, that BLS inflation statistics are being used for the rich in control to justify not paying those below them more, then that would indicate inflation is even MORE severe than the statistics indicate. Which would mean games are even cheaper now, for the average person, then they were in the past, when factoring how much they earn and what the buying-power of that money is. Let's forget about the BLS for a second. From 1985 to present, gas has gone from under $1 a gallon, to $3-4, or more in some places. Milk has gone from $2 a gallon to almost $4. Movie tickets have gone from about $2.50 to $8-9. Federal Minimum wage has raised from $3.35 to $7.25. Video games, on the other hand, have gone from $40-70 in the NES era to $60. Pretty much in the same price range, despite most other goods and services, especially luxury entertainments, increasing in price considerably over the same period of time, and despite the cost of making games skyrocketing.

Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

It's amazing how many people took him serious. lol

Avatar image for tommyas
tommyas

2594

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 tommyas
Member since 2007 • 2594 Posts

i hate this gen.

think about it.

in previous gens there was no such thing as a bad game.

in previous gens every game was amazing, innovative and unique.brimming with hour upon hour of fresh, new, varied content and gameplay that was never repetitive or dumbed down. every new game was its own new genre, no game could ever be accused of being a rehash or a hastily rushed sequel. games were also much much cheaper as publishers and developers didn't care about money or sales the were just bothered about making gamers happy. where as these days devs are lazy sell outs and publisher only care about are the new cancer of gaming 'the casual gamer'

before this gen these casuals did not even exist. every gamer was hardcore, in fact way more hardcore than anyone gaming today is. nobody bought games just for 'fun' games used to be bought as interllectual challenges. this casual gamer has suddenly started to buy lots of consoles. which in turn has affected the PC games market. as console sales have dirrectly led the the dumbing down of former classics. this is becouse in previous gens nobody ever bough consoles or console games and they were not very popular at all.

Vinegar_Strokes
Oh no, there were many bad games last gen, only Internet wasnt so popular back then. I still remember buying those PSM2 magazines or however they were called. That day each month when I got a new copy with new demos was a good day :P
Avatar image for dzimm
dzimm

6615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#41 dzimm
Member since 2006 • 6615 Posts
Gaming no longer belongs to the nerd minority. It's mainstream now.
Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#42 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

It shouldn't mean that there are more bugs but there are. And while I have been patching my pc games for years, I have never played a game as broken as Fallout New Vegas. It even surpasses Final Liberation. Play it unpatched and you'll see what it was like to play the game up until maybe a month or two ago when they finally started addressing the bugs instead of the benign exploits.ianuilliam

You just keep bringing up the same one game. One game being a buggy mess is not proof that games overall are more buggy this gen than in previous ones.

It seems like you missed a lot of big games from last gen. Before you even start talking about gta, you need to play through San Andreas. In fact, you should play San Andreas just for the experience. Once you're done you will see what I mean: that gta 4 (even with all the dlc) is a dwarf in comparison by every feature except graphics and draw distance.LeifLongbottom

I played SA long enough to get bored by it. The additional motivation of trophies was enough to get me through GTA4, but had it been significantly longer, I'm sure I'd have given up on it too.

And do yourself a favor and don't go by the BLS. Their statistics is one of the reasons there's such a big difference between what most people earn and what the top 1% earn: at least, it's what they use to justify their greed. In other words, it's a tool for rich people to misdirect the poor people so they don't set up a guillotine on Wall street.

The fact remains that gamers of this gen are getting less bang for their buck and are being asked for considerably more bucks overall.

LeifLongbottom

So, wait... are you trying to say that inflation doesn't exist? I mean, for your claim to be true, that BLS inflation statistics are being used for the rich in control to justify not paying those below them more, then that would indicate inflation is even MORE severe than the statistics indicate. Which would mean games are even cheaper now, for the average person, then they were in the past, when factoring how much they earn and what the buying-power of that money is. Let's forget about the BLS for a second. From 1985 to present, gas has gone from under $1 a gallon, to $3-4, or more in some places. Milk has gone from $2 a gallon to almost $4. Movie tickets have gone from about $2.50 to $8-9. Federal Minimum wage has raised from $3.35 to $7.25. Video games, on the other hand, have gone from $40-70 in the NES era to $60. Pretty much in the same price range, despite most other goods and services, especially luxury entertainments, increasing in price considerably over the same period of time, and despite the cost of making games skyrocketing.

You're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that it's cheaper for the Average person, it's cheaper for the richest percentiles. It's MORE expensive for the Average person. I don't know if you realize this but the earnings gap gets bigger every year.

FNV was just the most blatant offender when it comes to the glitchfest of this generations games. But really, how many games have you bought this gen that didnot have to be patched at any time because I don't think I have any. You can just as easily replace the FNV example with anything released by Bethesda OR Obsidian. Activision's games (like the CoDs)have had some serious problems too. Many of EAs releases. Hell, the first game I got for the ps3 (gta4) was so messed up a lot of people thought it broke their consoles. R* had to brew up an emergency patch in a couple of weeks. FNV has been brewing up an emergency patch for the past 6 months. That's why I'm stuck on FNV: it's been the worst.

Avatar image for ianuilliam
ianuilliam

4955

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 ianuilliam
Member since 2006 • 4955 Posts

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

It shouldn't mean that there are more bugs but there are. And while I have been patching my pc games for years, I have never played a game as broken as Fallout New Vegas. It even surpasses Final Liberation. Play it unpatched and you'll see what it was like to play the game up until maybe a month or two ago when they finally started addressing the bugs instead of the benign exploits.LeifLongbottom

You just keep bringing up the same one game. One game being a buggy mess is not proof that games overall are more buggy this gen than in previous ones.

It seems like you missed a lot of big games from last gen. Before you even start talking about gta, you need to play through San Andreas. In fact, you should play San Andreas just for the experience. Once you're done you will see what I mean: that gta 4 (even with all the dlc) is a dwarf in comparison by every feature except graphics and draw distance.LeifLongbottom

I played SA long enough to get bored by it. The additional motivation of trophies was enough to get me through GTA4, but had it been significantly longer, I'm sure I'd have given up on it too.

And do yourself a favor and don't go by the BLS. Their statistics is one of the reasons there's such a big difference between what most people earn and what the top 1% earn: at least, it's what they use to justify their greed. In other words, it's a tool for rich people to misdirect the poor people so they don't set up a guillotine on Wall street.

The fact remains that gamers of this gen are getting less bang for their buck and are being asked for considerably more bucks overall.

LeifLongbottom

So, wait... are you trying to say that inflation doesn't exist? I mean, for your claim to be true, that BLS inflation statistics are being used for the rich in control to justify not paying those below them more, then that would indicate inflation is even MORE severe than the statistics indicate. Which would mean games are even cheaper now, for the average person, then they were in the past, when factoring how much they earn and what the buying-power of that money is. Let's forget about the BLS for a second. From 1985 to present, gas has gone from under $1 a gallon, to $3-4, or more in some places. Milk has gone from $2 a gallon to almost $4. Movie tickets have gone from about $2.50 to $8-9. Federal Minimum wage has raised from $3.35 to $7.25. Video games, on the other hand, have gone from $40-70 in the NES era to $60. Pretty much in the same price range, despite most other goods and services, especially luxury entertainments, increasing in price considerably over the same period of time, and despite the cost of making games skyrocketing.

You're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that it's cheaper for the Average person, it's cheaper for the richest percentiles. It's MORE expensive for the Average person. I don't know if you realize this but the earnings gap gets bigger every year.

No, it's not just cheaper for the richest 1%. If you were making minimum wage in 1985, you brought in 134 a week (40 hrs) gross. NES games (new) averaged between $40-50. Sure some were $30-35 at launch, but some were $60-70 as well. Going with $40, the low end of the average price, one new game was about 29.9% of your gross pay for a week. If you make minimum wage now, you gross $290 a week. New games are $60. One new game is 20.7% of your gross for a week. 20% of your paycheck is cheaper than 30%.

Avatar image for LeifLongbottom
LeifLongbottom

2777

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#44 LeifLongbottom
Member since 2009 • 2777 Posts

[QUOTE="LeifLongbottom"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]So, wait... are you trying to say that inflation doesn't exist? I mean, for your claim to be true, that BLS inflation statistics are being used for the rich in control to justify not paying those below them more, then that would indicate inflation is even MORE severe than the statistics indicate. Which would mean games are even cheaper now, for the average person, then they were in the past, when factoring how much they earn and what the buying-power of that money is. Let's forget about the BLS for a second. From 1985 to present, gas has gone from under $1 a gallon, to $3-4, or more in some places. Milk has gone from $2 a gallon to almost $4. Movie tickets have gone from about $2.50 to $8-9. Federal Minimum wage has raised from $3.35 to $7.25. Video games, on the other hand, have gone from $40-70 in the NES era to $60. Pretty much in the same price range, despite most other goods and services, especially luxury entertainments, increasing in price considerably over the same period of time, and despite the cost of making games skyrocketing.

ianuilliam

You're completely missing the point. I'm not saying that it's cheaper for the Average person, it's cheaper for the richest percentiles. It's MORE expensive for the Average person. I don't know if you realize this but the earnings gap gets bigger every year.

No, it's not just cheaper for the richest 1%. If you were making minimum wage in 1985, you brought in 134 a week (40 hrs) gross. NES games (new) averaged between $40-50. Sure some were $30-35 at launch, but some were $60-70 as well. Going with $40, the low end of the average price, one new game was about 29.9% of your gross pay for a week. If you make minimum wage now, you gross $290 a week. New games are $60. One new game is 20.7% of your gross for a week. 20% of your paycheck is cheaper than 30%.

I don't remember any NES games that were $50-70. They were all $35 until later on and then the big/anticipated titles started going for $40-45.

Besides, one of the points of my previous post is that those who earn minimum wage (to many in the middle class) are in an even worse position (when compared to the top percentiles) than people who earned minimum wage in the 80s. That's why I'm saying don't go by the BLS.

A lot of the established figures are designed to favor the very rich and sweep aside those who earn minimum wage.

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
turtlethetaffer

18973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 0

#45 turtlethetaffer
Member since 2009 • 18973 Posts

Because people have ridiculous expectations.