# What do you want to see from games in the future?



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 16, 2012)

Simple question. What would you like to see come out of the gaming world in the future? Be what you'd like to happen with the games industry, what kind of technology you'd like, what particular kind of game you'd like, stuff like that.

Personally, while I would like to see the "big guys" revise their business models that always enrage gamers worldwide, I'd like to see more games create, fill, and explore different niches. I'm tired of seeing this dick-measuring contest where different games try to appeal to a wider audience by dumbing down the game significantly, or directly copying from other games (pretty much every console FPS in existence), or competing for exposure alone. That way, we can have Game A, Game B, and Game C that all happen to be in the same genre but have vastly different gameplay and appeal to Group A, Group B, and Group C, instead of appealing only to Group A, or creating a total mess after trying to appeal to A B and C in the same game. Basically, INNOVATE.

I'd also like to see journalism change. Games are not something that can be rated by score alone. You know how it is, one man's junk is another man's treasure. I believe score-rated journalism has poisoned the industry, now you'll see that many many gamers are very reluctant to the idea of playing a game that is rated 7/10. Hell, some of my all-time faves are 7/10 because they fill a niche!

 It's a common mistake for journalists to review a game based on what they would _rather_ play, instead of reviewing a game on how well it executes its goals. You hear journalists bitch and whine about games like ArmA and Red Orchestra because they are different to and harder to play than arcadey COD stuff.

Look at this atrocious review, for example: http://www.g4tv.com/games/pc/34809/red-orchestra-ostfront-41-45/review/

They even got the numbers in the name wrong. The reviewers obviously did not take the time out to learn how to actually play the game before passing judgement on it, which a gamer looking to play a niche title would have loved to do. But nope! They go "Omg it's not a casual console FPS, rate it down!" and niche gamers take their word for it and turn their heads away from something that they would have otherwise enjoyed. Journalists should simply give a report on what a game is actually _trying_ to do, and review how well it is doing in achieving that goal, rather than compare it to another game whose success came mainly from marketing and not being something truly special and innovative.

So how about you guys, what would you like to see in the industry in the future? What games, what actions, what technology?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 16, 2012)

Id like for ea to quit existing as their whole company sucks ass


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 16, 2012)

Less braindead DRM would be a good start, along with an end to shitty console ports. Change your key bindings and graphics options? What madness! 

Agreed on having less of this dumbing-down appeal-to-a-wider-audience shit. Just do the one thing, and do it _well._ If someone doesn't like playing FPS games, they wont play it no matter how much auto-aim and titties are added.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2012)

Less of the big names dominating the picture.  More small indie devs getting more time in the spotlight.  More choice, more fun.  Less emphasis on what looks good in a promo reel or commercial or whatever, more emphasis on making a game that literally holds your attention for months and months instead of being completed in a week and leaving the player to try and wring more time out of their 50 bucks by modding or replaying BUT WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH ad infinitum.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 16, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Less of the big names dominating the picture.  More small indie devs getting more time in the spotlight.  More choice, more fun.  Less emphasis on what looks good in a promo reel or commercial or whatever, more emphasis on making a game that literally holds your attention for months and months instead of being completed in a week and leaving the player to try and wring more time out of their 50 bucks by modding or replaying BUT WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH ad infinitum.



This.

Also for one thing, I think the "levelling" trend should be taken out of FPS games to some degree. I mean, look at how long people have been playing Counter-Strike, and how long people have been playing the concurrent CoD title/other FPS with levelling.

People should be encouraged to play a game simply because it's fun, not to gain rewards, and they should be able to see themselves literally become better players through their own skill rather than what is given to them in-game. I never played pool or poker to level up, I played it because it was fun, and I loved seeing myself get genuinely better at it.


----------



## Onnes (Jan 16, 2012)

Someone needs to return to the Ultima Online conception of the MMORPG and do it right.


----------



## shteev (Jan 16, 2012)

I want EA to go devour a bowl of cocks, that's what I want.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 16, 2012)

Well "journalism/reviewers" in general need a huge change in the way they go about reviewing games or anything else. but that's a whole nother beast for a whole different thing.

For RPGs all i want is a really good story, and storys in general in games seem to be improving which is good.

For fighting games i want more teaching. Most only give you semi-impractical combos that you won't ever or should ever use. They should teach people what's safe and unsafe and how to deal with mix-ups/do mix-ups. Yet at the same time they try to baby players in the wrong ways. Also most all should go the way of Skullgirls and have an infinite detection system along with no completed scaling of hitstun on moves. O also more options for training mode, like having the cpu do a specfic move on the first frame possible so you can practice someone mashing that move on wakeup and countering it. Also showing frame data and hit boxes would be awesome.


----------



## veeno (Jan 16, 2012)

In the future i want more story based games.


----------



## TechnoGypsy (Jan 16, 2012)

I want to see myself in the credits.


----------



## veeno (Jan 16, 2012)

TechnoGypsy said:


> I want to see myself in the credits.


Hell yeah


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jan 16, 2012)

More platformers on the PS3, please.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 16, 2012)

o yea also less fps games >.>


----------



## Littlerock (Jan 16, 2012)

I want a goddamn _satisfying_ game. It doesn't have to have the best graphics, it doesn't have to feature aliens or titties. It doesn't need to have a 200 hour gameplay, and it better not drop below 20. 

I want a game that makes me think, something that makes me frustrated at times, but not because I can't mash the A button 200 times a second. Make me try harder next time, not walk me through. I don't want a published help guide. 

Treasure chests are nice though. How about an adventure game about a pirate, and not about some shitty anime, or some overcooked movie series? (Seriously, _One Piece Grand Adventure_ sucked balls) Choose my enemies on the high seas! Get the booty! Fire cannons at the British Navy, ha ha! I want to choose which seadog gets to be my first mate, not some shitty pre-set NPC's with no fucking character, let's build a crew ourselves.  Holy shit, a hurricane! That wasn't a tiime-set cutscene either, that shit was totally randomized. No clue what the weather's going to be next, not until you get used to the game. Don't give me hints, I want to learn how to read the in-game sky myself. Let me bury the chests where I please, not preset destinations. Fuck, my crew is revolting because I suck at being a captain! Guess I'll learn better next time.

 Maybe I want my character to get hung at the end of the game. He was a terrible person, he had it coming. There is no other way than to end the game dead? Fantastic!

Fuck this shit, let's be _pirates_.


----------



## Cain (Jan 16, 2012)

All digital game downloads are through steam.

Companies like Bethesda Nd Bioware to grow and develop their games without any input from big TNCs of the gaming industry.


----------



## veeno (Jan 16, 2012)

barefootfoof said:


> I want a goddamn _satisfying_ game. It doesn't have to have the best graphics, it doesn't have to feature aliens or titties. It doesn't need to have a 200 hour gameplay, and it better not drop below 20.
> 
> I want a game that makes me think, something that makes me frustrated at times, but not because I can't mash the A button 200 times a second. Make me try harder next time, not walk me through. I don't want a published help guide.
> 
> ...


I will be a pirate with you.


----------



## Wreth (Jan 16, 2012)

barefootfoof said:


> I want a goddamn _satisfying_ game. It doesn't have to have the best graphics, it doesn't have to feature aliens or titties. It doesn't need to have a 200 hour gameplay, and it better not drop below 20.
> 
> I want a game that makes me think, something that makes me frustrated at times, but not because I can't mash the A button 200 times a second. Make me try harder next time, not walk me through. I don't want a published help guide.
> 
> ...



I have imagined this game too <3


----------



## Kaamos (Jan 16, 2012)

edit: nevermind this is a terrible idea


----------



## Littlerock (Jan 16, 2012)

Wreth said:


> I have imagined this game too <3





veeno said:


> I will be a pirate with you.



Yarr harr, fiddle-dee-dee!

/eyepatch


----------



## Carnie (Jan 16, 2012)

More Immersion and even more free roam. I cannot get enough of free roam.


----------



## Littlerock (Jan 16, 2012)

Carnie said:


> More Immersion and even more free roam. I cannot get enough of *free roam*.



_Oh my God yes_.
Nothing better sometimes than stepping away from the storyline and just exploring. This might be why I loved LoZ:TP so much, just riding around fiddling with things forever.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 16, 2012)

Better stories.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Jan 16, 2012)

More shallow DLC, more intrusive DRM, and more poorly-applied moral choice systems.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Jan 16, 2012)

I want a single player massive space game with trading, worlds to explore, and seamless transitions from space to world. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCzDKj3hjOE

I want more STALKER style games. Sure, there's a lot of fighting, but it's a small part in exploring the large, intricate, compelling environment. It's so dismal and emotional that when it started to rain, I took cover in a shed, sat by the door, and watched the clouds move by. Not because there's acid rain, but _because I was so immersed in the environment, I felt the need to avoid the rain._ It helps that any surface will occlude rainfall.

I used to not understand the backlash at any CoD game after Modern Warfare, even though I played every CoD game before that (except for 3, lousy fucking console-only game). Then, as I was playing a friend's copy of MW2, I suddenly realized; every five inches, something new happens. A plane will crash nearby and take out the building I'm in. I will be shot for a cutscene that involves me being injured and escaping a building, killing a million Russians with my pistol. I will be pinned with my squad at a strategically advantageous point, fending off wave after wave of enemies as I wait for helicopters to arrive, and then fight my way out to get to them. It all immediately became very - I cannot express how accurate this word is - _tiring._You just can't throw a billion enemies and movie-like sequences together. You need pace and good transitions between high-octane action and high tension to make that action more awesome. That's why the original Modern Warfare was so good; that Pripyat Sniper mission was the best. A huge buildup, nice points of no killing but high tension (hiding IN BETWEEN Russian tanks and infantry), culminating with a single, agonizingly long kill, and suddenly, all hell breaks loose. Instead of fighting, you run.

Here's another example. I was assigned to clear bloodsuckers out of a village in STALKER. I searched the entire thing, only hearing lion's roars in the distance. I kept going into buildings and teleporting to their exact copies on the other side of this tiny town. I was in a building, heard roars that were closer but faded away, gave up, and walked to the doorway. BAM! Suddenly, the invisible monster showed itself and literally scared me onto the ground. It was completely unscripted, but that 20 minutes of tension following inhumans scares for a never-before-seen enemy that just materializes in front of you, which is its main predatory advantage, and then kick your ass? AWESOME.

TL;DR - Less games with 100% insane action, but more atmospheric, open-ended games that combine action with tension.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jan 17, 2012)

No more of this _"We obviously already had this content ready, in time for the game's completion, but we're leaving it out anyway. Pay us extra for it."_ DLC bullshit.
This is one of the quickest things to turn me away from buying a game at full price, if I ever buy it, or just outright consider pirating the fucker.
If it's not a completed game, I'm not paying a "completed game" price. Go fuck yourselves, game companies pulling this shit.


----------



## DW_ (Jan 17, 2012)

I want shit reviewers like Game Informer to stop existing. Seriously, MW3 is on your top games of 2011? Fuck you.

Also do not let Tim Turi anywhere near a Sonic game because he's a profesionally paid Adventure fan brat.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Jan 17, 2012)

TheDW said:


> I want shit reviewers like Game Informer to stop existing. Seriously, MW3 is on your top games of 2011? Fuck you.
> 
> Also do not let Tim Turi anywhere near a Sonic game because he's a profesionally paid Adventure fan brat.



Addendum: don't let peter molyneux near ANY game.


----------



## DW_ (Jan 17, 2012)

OssumPawesome said:


> Addendum: don't let peter molyneux near ANY game.



This too.

Also, don't let Shittivision near any online service.


----------



## Kaamos (Jan 17, 2012)

OssumPawesome said:


> Addendum: don't let peter molyneux near ANY game.



You know, now that I think about it it would be kind of interesting to see another developer's take on the Fable series.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Jan 17, 2012)

Kaamos said:


> You know, now that I think about it it would be kind of interesting to see another developer's take on the Fable series.



The truly interesting thing would be Black and White sans creature mechanic.


----------



## DW_ (Jan 17, 2012)

Kaamos said:


> You know, now that I think about it it would be kind of interesting to see another developer's take on the Fable series.




I'd say BioWare but we'd end up with either a DA clone or Neverwinter Nights 3 (the latter of which I'd welcome with open arms).


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jan 17, 2012)

To be honest, I don't really care anymore.
With all the crappy "Haha, you actually want to *play* this game you bought a legal copy of?" DRM, terrible "please give us more money in exchange for the other half of your full-price game" DLC, and buggy "Please pay full price for this alpha-build with more bugs than working features, and maybe we'll get round to patching it up halfway next year" releases, I'm done with gaming.
I've got a big enough backlog as it is anyway.


----------



## BRN (Jan 17, 2012)

[yt]ZiN6t7K7txw[/yt][yt]2yX4h8Agi7U[/yt][yt]Y6TAZ_BsCXY[/yt][yt]F9hagVL-__c[/yt][yt]-_id43LMoIo[/yt][yt]UGKsGtv6Dqo[/yt]


----------



## veeno (Jan 17, 2012)

barefootfoof said:


> Yarr harr, fiddle-dee-dee!
> 
> /eyepatch


I already have an eye patch.

So i already qualify.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

veeno said:


> I already have an eye patch.
> 
> So i already qualify.



That's badass


----------



## Cain (Jan 17, 2012)

veeno said:


> I already have an eye patch.
> 
> So i already qualify.


Is this some weird new fetish?
:V


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

SIX said:


> game musics



i don't get this. most of those that you posted were from moderately recent games.


----------



## BRN (Jan 17, 2012)

Alastair Snowpaw said:


> i don't get this. most of those that you posted were from moderately recent games.


Not really. 2011, 1997, 1998, 2004, 2008, 2004 - but what I was trying to say, truly, was that I want beautiful soundscapes in good, single-player games. Decent soundtrack and decent plots and decent characters - in preference to half-assed gameplay multiplayer franchise re-releases.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

I never really understood the people who want plots and characters in GAMES. If the "game" was like Heavy Rain, or the recent Jurassic Park: The "Game", I understand perfectly, and I dig those titles. But I never once played tag, monopoly, warhammer, pool, poker, paintball, killing floor, and god-knows-what to be told a story. If I want a story, I will watch a movie or read a book.

IMO, a story in a game should be a secondary (or tertiary) thing to consider. I mean, just look at the funding that goes into a project that spends millions on writers, hollywood actors, and graphics, whilst spending fuck-all in comparision on making the GAME part of it. They could have used all that money and focused on creating and building upon a complex, deep, unique game that is actually worth the Â£40/$60 it asks for and makes many people come back to again and again because it's so full of fun and gameplay perfection.

and I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather take up a sport than watch the same movie again and again.



Alastair Snowpaw said:


> o yea also less fps games >.>



If you mean CoD/CSS/TF2 clones, I agree. We have enough of those.

But if you mean games in general that are played in a first-person perspective, I disagree wholeheartedly and would like to see your reasoning.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 17, 2012)

A .//hack MMORPG.

That is all I wish for.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 17, 2012)

Tycho said:


> Less of the big names dominating the picture.  More small indie devs getting more time in the spotlight.  More choice, more fun.  Less emphasis on what looks good in a promo reel or commercial or whatever, more emphasis on making a game that literally holds your attention for months and months instead of being completed in a week and leaving the player to try and wring more time out of their 50 bucks by modding or replaying BUT WITH A DIFFERENT APPROACH ad infinitum.



What I would like to see gamers do is actually *pay attention* to them, too. Not just when other big-name companies publish something developed by an independent third-party company to get ignored, but even for them to somehow get noticed. For every Minecraft, there're three or four titles that are only known to a small number of people who wonder why nobody else plays it. 


I'd like to see the *audience* improve too. 
Quit claiming you want new franchises, only to ignore them when people *do* make them. 
If you really just want more games with a controller or keyboard, just *admit* it and don't complain about how "boring" or "stale" the unwritten standards for control schemes are. 
If you want game companies to think you're not a bunch of dipshits, *stop justifying it*. Look at the feedback they receive...you *wonder* why they think the average gamer is dumber than the ham sandwich they ate for lunch? Look at the comments they get on their official board, stuff posted on GameFAQs, and the fact that there's no sign of intelligent life on any form of Kotaku. Yeah, I know, it's something hard to change, but people are more likely to complain about something than they are to actually say they liked it and be constructive. All the satisfied customers get drowned out by the whining haters. (Trust me...you can even see this on the board. More comments are about how they *hated* the game or the devs.) You know what they say...a satisfied customer will tell one person. A dissatisfied customer will tell ten. 
If you claim to pirate because of DRM, then acknowledge it really does not look good for you when DRM-free games wind up with huge piracy rates. If you claim to pirate because of price, it doesn't look good for you when people pirate stuff sold for *very* cheap (less than $10) or the Humble Bundles. Acknowledge that. 
Acknowledge that devs are not psychic. They do not know whether you're a 30 year veteran or a new person. 
And most importantly, quit acting like bastards online. Seriously. Games are about having *fun*. I still find it weird the people having the most fun in MOBAs are the ones who don't give a shit about their statistics or their achievements, they're just there to have fun.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

Aye, nobody really goes onto a game developer's forum to say nice things very often.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I never really understood the people who want plots and characters in GAMES. If the "game" was like Heavy Rain, or the recent Jurassic Park: The "Game", I understand perfectly, and I dig those titles. But I never once played tag, monopoly, warhammer, pool, poker, paintball, killing floor, and god-knows-what to be told a story. If I want a story, I will watch a movie or read a book.
> 
> IMO, a story in a game should be a secondary (or tertiary) thing to consider. I mean, just look at the funding that goes into a project that spends millions on writers, hollywood actors, and graphics, whilst spending fuck-all in comparision on making the GAME part of it. They could have used all that money and focused on creating and building upon a complex, deep, unique game that is actually worth the Â£40/$60 it asks for and makes many people come back to again and again because it's so full of fun and gameplay perfection.
> 
> and I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather take up a sport than watch the same movie again and again.



Well there are a lot of movies and books with a shitty plot, and i kind of wanna keep my time/money to one activity. Also people like having the ability to not just watch or read a story, there's a certain appeal to playing a story. Also playing a game that's hugeley based on story is more than watching a movie. In story based games you tend to have around 10 times the amount of time for a great story than you do compared to a movie (and 20 hour game is generally on the short end for most story based games). Also there's multiple ending storys and different choices which add alot to the game and can make it a lot more interesting than a movie (rosebud will always be his sled at the end of citizen kane, but a game can have more than one ending). These are things storys can do for games and adds more appeals to them. Also how you get to the ending and through a game can differentiate, unlike a movie, which is something you didn't seem to mention.
However not all games need storys, but those are games where you are the character and it's based around a simple but appealing gameplay thing that has lots of room for depth (for example N+). But stories give a game more appeal, but more importantly characterization makes a game funner to play. No one wants to play an unappealing character who is not developed enough. But at the same time, no one wants to play a game with bad controls/gameplay. Also in some games it's better to have no story than a bad one, bad stories make a game more unapelling. A good story only helps a game so it is understandable why game compansy are now trying more to have games with better stories.
Both are needed but the extent to which they're needed depends on the genre of game. An RPG is it very necessary to have a good story and the ratio between good story/gameplay leans more in story. But a racing game the gameplay is a lot more important and it's a game type that does not really need a story.



Gibby said:


> If you mean CoD/CSS/TF2 clones, I agree. We have enough of those.
> 
> But if you mean games in general that are played in a first-person perspective, I disagree wholeheartedly and would like to see your reasoning.


I meant the first type


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

What I wanted to say is that "games" that are made to "play a story" should be classified as something other than games. LA Noire, Jurassic Park, Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, those games, while I enjoyed them, should be classified as something else, like interactive story or something. They're good to play, but they're only good when you know what you're getting into, and they shouldn't be classifed as "games" as they have the potential to overshadow "real" games, such as multiplayer shooters, building sims, strategy wargames, puzzle games, stuff like that. I mean, people copying CSS/COD en masse is bad enough, but if "story games" are not seperated we will be likely to have people copying "story games" en masse instead. *UGH.*

And the 20 hour thing is false, I tell ya. A LOT of story-based games don't even reach 8! Asking me to pay Â£40 to only play a game for 8 hours and not touch it again is ridiculous. No game is worth that much money, unless it's the kind where you can expect to play it for _years_, like TF2.

As for characters, when I play a game, _I could not possibly give less of a shit about who I'm playing as._ I want to be ME with my mind and my skill in a virtual environment. A visual representation is cool, but I do not want to pretend to be somebody else, unless it's a guy with weapons/abilities that are necessary for the gameplay. I don't want to have a story behind me. I just want to play the damned game and enjoy it.

And I honestly think that game developers should slow down with the damn stories and their attempts to make good ones. Look at all the AAA titles that come out today, and look how their core gameplay has hardly changed or developed in any way whatsoever. Feeding me the same shit with a different wrapping is not going to make me enjoy it.


----------



## DW_ (Jan 17, 2012)

Digitalpotato said:


> All the satisfied customers get drowned out by the whining haters. (Trust me...you can even see this on the board. More comments are about how they *hated* the game or the devs.) You know what they say...a satisfied customer will tell one person. A dissatisfied customer will tell ten.
> .



Ugh fuck don't remind me. EVERY TIME a new Sonic is released, there's the obligatory 77658356837534y458375635 hater threads denouncing the game as garbage, some _without even playing it first. _Then there's these types of users, who while dismissed as nuts by some, _actually have prominent users agreeing with their bullshit. _Not to mention this guy misses NO opportunity to call Iizuka a hopeless clown while avoiding the ban hammer. And here's my personal favorite post of his. Does he even know what autotuning _is?_


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jan 17, 2012)

They need to stop tossing around about a Mirror's Edge sequel and just say it isn't happening.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> What I wanted to say is that "games" that are made to "play a story" should be classified as something other than games. LA Noire, Jurassic Park, Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, those games, while I enjoyed them, should be classified as something else, like interactive story or something. They're good to play, but they're only good when you know what you're getting into, and they shouldn't be classifed as "games" as they have the potential to overshadow "real" games, such as multiplayer shooters, building sims, strategy wargames, puzzle games, stuff like that. I mean, people copying CSS/COD en masse is bad enough, but if "story games" are not seperated we will be likely to have people copying "story games" en masse instead. *UGH.
> *


Well they're both types of games, just different types of games. one is no less real than the other. Another name other than "real games" would kind of be proffered. Also catherine, a puzzle game with a great story shows that good gameplay and good story don't have to be mutually exclusive and you can play a game for either. Also it's story is what makes it different and memorable. Which is why game developers put stories in games. It reaches out to more people and gives people more reasons to play games. Also a story gives a game personality in a growing industry. Storys are needed, but not always in the typical sense. Like shadow of the colossus, What makes it memorable is the giant creatures and the beauty of the game. What if they removed the creatures, just made it all blank generic things you climb? The game would completely lose it's purpose. What about in any WW2 shooter, what if it wasn't in WW2 and just a nameless place and you were fighting nameless enemys?



Gibby said:


> And the 20 hour thing is false, I tell ya. A LOT of story-based games don't even reach 8! Asking me to pay Â£40 to only play a game for 8 hours and not touch it again is ridiculous. No game is worth that much money, unless it's the kind where you can expect to play it for _years_, like TF2.



Uh i was thinking about every single RPG game i have ever played or heard of, all which easily surpass 20 hours on not just a main story. The only semi exception to this is chrono trigger where you can skip to the final boss at the beggining of the game, of course you won't likley win unless you have played the game before but still. Also the tales of series has had really fun gameplay elements and fun to play with friends. Also the shin megami tensei series is known for great difficulty and really non-linear combat and creation of monsters. Also both of these game series i wouldn't classify a game you could play for just a story, since both have really interesting and fun combat systems.



Gibby said:


> As for characters, when I play a game, _I could not possibly give less of a shit about who I'm playing as._ I want to be ME with my mind and my skill in a virtual environment. A visual representation is cool, but I do not want to pretend to be somebody else, unless it's a guy with weapons/abilities that are necessary for the gameplay. I don't want to have a story behind me. I just want to play the damned game and enjoy it.


Well it depends on the game, like sandbox games that makes sense and same with simple games with a addicting premise. But in a fighting game interesting characters is a core part of the game, it's much more fun to play a character you like in a fighting game than the best, even when money is on the line some of the best choose who they like over who is the best. Also without interesting characters there's very little motivation to continue playing a fighting game no matter how good/bad the system. However there are some series that don't need characters or stories (racing and sports games), but it fucking helps. However there are a lot more genres that do need personality and good stories in order to be good and be memorable.



Gibby said:


> And I honestly think that game developers should slow down with the damn stories and their attempts to make good ones. Look at all the AAA titles that come out today, and look how their core gameplay has hardly changed or developed in any way whatsoever. Feeding me the same shit with a different wrapping is not going to make me enjoy it.


Lack of story won't change that. Look at most any major sports series. They don't try to have stories yet they still shovel the same gameplay shit. Major companies don't fix what's not broken and will shovel shit at you as long as they get the massive amounts of money they do
O also i never said storys should come first in a game. but the industry has gotten to a point where stories are needed if your game falls into any of the main genres of gameplay. Most games won't be groundbreaking in gameplay so they will not really be remebered all that well even if their gameplay is amazing, What truly makes a memorable game that people will buy is a good story/stlye. (except for the seires that are already big, they're just snow balling foward on their success).


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

Alastair Snowpaw said:


> The game would completely lose it's purpose. What about in any WW2 shooter, what if it wasn't in WW2 and just a nameless place and you were fighting nameless enemys?



The purpose of a game is to have FUN. We will then have a shooter that is fun.



> Uh i was thinking about every single RPG game i have ever played or heard of, all which easily surpass 20 hours on not just a main story. The only semi exception to this is chrono trigger where you can skip to the final boss at the beggining of the game, of course you won't likley win unless you have played the game before but still. Also the tales of series has had really fun gameplay elements and fun to play with friends. Also the shin megami tensei series is known for great difficulty and really non-linear combat and creation of monsters. Also both of these game series i wouldn't classify a game you could play for just a story, since both have really interesting and fun combat systems.



JRPGs hmm? :/ I have yet to see a JRPG type game that has actually truly evolved.



> Well it depends on the game, like sandbox games that makes sense and same with simple games with a addicting premise. But in a fighting game interesting characters is a core part of the game, it's much more fun to play a character you like in a fighting game than the best, even when money is on the line some of the best choose who they like over who is the best. Also without interesting characters there's very little motivation to continue playing a fighting game no matter how good/bad the system. However there are some series that don't need characters or stories (racing and sports games), but it fucking helps. However there are a lot more genres that do need personality and good stories in order to be good and be memorable.



Minecraft, Gmod, Toribash. None of those have story, and they are very popular, cos gameplay is their focus. And trust me, a fighting game would do well even without a story. It just needs a visual representation of player avatars, different abilities and stats, and then you're set. All you have to do after that is work on the gameplay's depth.



> Lack of story won't change that. Look at most any major sports series. They don't try to have stories yet they still shovel the same gameplay shit. Major companies don't fix what's not broken and will shovel shit at you as long as they get the massive amounts of money they do
> O also i never said storys should come first in a game. but the industry has gotten to a point where stories are needed if your game falls into any of the main genres of gameplay. Most games won't be groundbreaking in gameplay so they will not really be remebered all that well even if their gameplay is amazing, What truly makes a memorable game that people will buy is a good story/stlye. (except for the seires that are already big, they're just snow balling foward on their success).



Sports videogames are the shittiest kind of game ever made. They themselves are a skidmark on the underpants of the games industry.

And no, that is so, so, so very untrue, _I cannot believe you just said that_. So very many games have been successful whilst having virtually no story, or 100% no story. Those games are out and are being played today. And I can tell you, MANY games are being remembered for their gameplay alone, and they are YEARS old. Remember Pong? :3


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> The purpose of a game is to have FUN. We will then have a shooter that is fun.


well that's the purpose of any form of entertainment, to entertain you.





Gibby said:


> JRPGs hmm? :/ I have yet to see a JRPG type game that has actually truly evolved.


Not sure what you mean by evolved but there are plenty of high quality games that are JRPGs




Gibby said:


> Minecraft, Gmod, Toribash. None of those have story, and they are very popular, cos gameplay is their focus. And trust me, a fighting game would do well even without a story. It just needs a visual representation of player avatars, different abilities and stats, and then you're set. All you have to do after that is work on the gameplay's depth.


All those are originators and complety new ideas. not sure what toribash is though. Also about fighitng games; guilty gear accent core, skullgirls, , and KoF13. Also this year the fighting game that has recieved the most rewards/praise is mortal kombat, why? cause of it's story and all the shiny things it has even though gameplay wise it is not the best fighting game out there with the best system.



Gibby said:


> And no, that is so, so, so very untrue, _I cannot believe you just said that_. So very many games have been successful whilst having virtually no story, or 100% no story. Those games are out and are being played today. And I can tell you, MANY games are being remembered for their gameplay alone, and they are YEARS old. Remember Pong? :3


i'm talking about now, Pong is remebered because it's the first of it's kind, same with mario/final fantasy/pacman and so many others. We have gone past the video game age of discovery so not many games will be the first for a gamplay thing.
i would say more but i gotta go to class now. also i agree on the sports thing.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

I don't remember Mortal Kombat starting with a story. Look how successful it was then! It was simply a great game to play.

And nope, wrong. Many games are remembered today from the present because of their gameplay. And of course people love MC because it's new! It's INNOVATION that people really like. If it was a new CoD clone game with another story, most people would just groan.

And new technology for games is being created, and computers are being able to hold more and more complex functions, and methods of creating games themselves are improving. There is always room for more discovery in gaming, be it software or hardware oriented. When new tech comes out, there is suddenly a load of things that could be done with it. Look at the first videogame physics engine for example, and more optimised versions of that!


----------



## veeno (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> That's badass


Oh thank you nobody ha ever said that before.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 17, 2012)

veeno said:


> Oh thank you nobody ha ever said that before.



Liar


----------



## veeno (Jan 17, 2012)

I do not understand i do not lie.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Jan 17, 2012)

Something like TRON: Legacy or Gamer.

't'will be sick.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I don't remember Mortal Kombat starting with a story. Look how successful it was then! It was simply a great game to play.



It was also the first insanly violent video game which is what it's more so remembered for. There were tons of games that soon followed in persuit of this idea yet pretty much all of them are forgeten yet they could have easily been as fun. people will always associate mortal kombat with it's fatalities and over the top gore. Also just incased you missed all the fighting games i mentioned have fleshed out and very well done fighting mechanics. also at least for guilty gear it has a huge cast all that play radically different and are each very varied and at the same time is also the most balanced fighting game out there with every single character being viable (something that pretty much every other fighter lacks). Yet it is not a very known or successful series, not to the point of street fighter or mortal kombat. Also the most recent mortal kombat doesn't have nearly as complete or fleshed out system as KoF13 or guilty gear yet it is vastly more sucessful. Do you even know what KoF stands for?



Gibby said:


> And nope, wrong. Many games are remembered today from the present because of their gameplay. And of course people love MC because it's new! It's INNOVATION that people really like. If it was a new CoD clone game with another story, most people would just groan.


Yes there are obviously games remembered for their game play, but there are lots of games remebered for their story. Look at portal, although it had amazing new gameplay and new ideas. However it is remembered for GlaDoS and the cake is a lie. Also another example is FF7, the main thing most poeple know about that game is arith's death. O also would anyone even remeber zero wing in some way if it wasn't for "all your base are belong to us!"



Gibby said:


> And new technology for games is being created, and computers are being able to hold more and more complex functions, and methods of creating games themselves are improving. There is always room for more discovery in gaming, be it software or hardware oriented. When new tech comes out, there is suddenly a load of things that could be done with it. Look at the first videogame physics engine for example, and more optimised versions of that!


I'm not really a technology person so >.>
but i do know how games have evolved gameplay wise and it is definitly a good thing, but also the evolution of their stories is a good thing as well. And both things should continue advancing.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

So you'd agree that a story isn't just what makes a game truly, truly great? Cos that's the idea that a lot of people seem to have and it's dumb. A story in a game is always nice to have in some form, but it is simply _not necessary_ and I find it a real waste to develop a game that has the majority of its time, funds, and resources put into creating a story for it. Sometimes a scenario that takes 10 minutes to think up is perfect for the job, but then you have e.g. Skyrim. But, a game like Skyrim could fare well even without a story. Look at titles like Mount and Blade: Warband.


----------



## Carnie (Jan 17, 2012)

veeno said:


> I do not understand i do not lie.



Is english your first language?

Or are you just a very tricky spambot? :v


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Jan 17, 2012)

1) The removal of shitty gimmicks like 3D and motion control. It's great that we want this sort of technology, but it ruins the game for me if I'm required to do some shitty movement with an unresponsive controller to do some menial task in a game. The option is nice, but I want it to be just that: an option. As for 3D, it's great, but if that's your big selling point, you need to get the fuck back to the drawing board and actually attempt to make a game with some fucking depth (oh the irony!).

2) The removal of games that have a new iteration of the same bland gameplay every year (I'm looking at you Madden and CoD). I know it kills people to wait for the next installment of their favorite game to come out, but it seems like it would be an even bigger slap in the face when the next installment comes out and the only thing that they've added is an extension to some shallow story-line that's already been done a million times by other games. I can kind of understand Madden having a new game every year to some extent because of roster changes in Football teams, but what I don't understand are the people that buy each new installment every year with the expectation that that's not the only thing changing.

3) The removal of intrusive DRM. I don't mind Steam because it's a great platform with some pretty good Customer Service. That being said, I dislike it when every fucking games company decides that they need to have their own shitty platform to bring a mediocre equivalent of Steam to the table (I'm looking at you EA). In fact, it would be awesome if EA would just disband or something and leave developer's to their own devices. I love Bioware games, but I'm starting to really dislike how EA plasters their name everywhere on the games like they made it and yet the developers humbly leave their name in unobtrusive locations.

Might think of some positive ones later. >_>


----------



## Teal (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm sick of games that have like 4 hours of gameplay. If I pay $60 for a game I want it to last a while.


----------



## veeno (Jan 17, 2012)

Carnie said:


> Is english your first language?
> 
> Or are you just a very tricky spambot? :v


No my fist language is russian.

And what is spambot?


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Jan 17, 2012)

Gibby said:


> So you'd agree that a story isn't just what makes a game truly, truly great? Cos that's the idea that a lot of people seem to have and it's dumb. A story in a game is always nice to have in some form, but it is simply _not necessary_ and I find it a real waste to develop a game that has the majority of its time, funds, and resources put into creating a story for it. Sometimes a scenario that takes 10 minutes to think up is perfect for the job, but then you have e.g. Skyrim. But, a game like Skyrim could fare well even without a story. Look at titles like Mount and Blade: Warband.



No some games are truly truly great because their story puts them above and beyond the rest. However if a game is an innovater and brings something radically new and good to the table it will be memorable solely for that reason. My favorite game has amazing gameplay, challenging everything, and lots of non-linearity to how you go about combat. But what makes it my favorite and also what makes it a truly amazing game that i remeber before all the other games i played with similar gameplay is it's story.  Also spending time on a story for a game is not a waste a of time. Every game can't be a brand new innovation that changes the industry forever, that's just not possible and way too risky. However a game can improve on a solid formula already in place and make a good story that will put it above it's competition. A story is also very important for most all games in the current market in order to not be generic game 4, a story is not something that should be done in the last 10 minutes for a game, sory/atmosphere for a game is a big part of it, but it's not the biggest part. Also the most successful games aren't always the greatest and having some of the best gameplay in a genre doesn't mean a game will be successful (once again i bring up KoF13, which you still haven't mentioned the full name of). Also i have no idea what mount and blade is.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 17, 2012)

There's many variations for the same new concept that can be used to make different games, yes. What is dumb, however, is making a new game with the same variation of the same concept that was already done with a different game, but now with a different story. Why not just make a movie or write a book for that? And let me tell ya, a lot of the "risk" involved in creating a game revolves around the expenses. Expenses which happen to be focused largely onto story, graphics, and acting. And the 10 minute thing was saying that it's good to have a game that has a background scenario that takes 10 minutes to think up, just to help create a little flavour. CSS for example.

And you should search for Mount and Blade: Warband. Fantastic game, none like it.


----------



## Carnie (Jan 17, 2012)

veeno said:


> No my fist language is russian.
> 
> And what is spambot?



Ah, that explains a lot. I'm not sure how I would explain what lizardking did there clearly, but it was just a joke. A cheesy joke, but a joke nonetheless.

Also, wikipedia explains spambots better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spambot That was also a joke though. Probably an even worse joke, but still a joke.


----------



## veeno (Jan 17, 2012)

Carnie said:


> Ah, that explains a lot. I'm not sure how I would explain what lizardking did there clearly, but it was just a joke. A cheesy joke, but a joke nonetheless.
> 
> Also, wikipedia explains spambots better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spambot That was also a joke though. Probably an even worse joke, but still a joke.


Thank you.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 17, 2012)

TheDW said:


> Ugh fuck don't remind me. EVERY TIME a new Sonic is released, there's the obligatory 77658356837534y458375635 hater threads denouncing the game as garbage, some _without even playing it first. _Then there's these types of users, who while dismissed as nuts by some, _actually have prominent users agreeing with their bullshit. _Not to mention this guy misses NO opportunity to call Iizuka a hopeless clown while avoiding the ban hammer. And here's my personal favorite post of his. Does he even know what autotuning _is?_



The funny thing about Sonic "fans" is that they're just like those people who cry "Boycott" for the *pettiest* reasons; only to buy it anyways. 

Don't "Swear off Sonic forever" only to return. Especially don't buy it at launch and claim you're so "Disappointed" - wiat for the reviews to come in. Rent it or demo it and see if you like it before "wasting $wx.yz. Don't freaking buy it at launch, wait a little while and see if you might like it. Sega knows that they can never please their fans as they all want completely different things....but they know that you all have one thing in common. You just keep coming back.
Don't "Boycott" Left 4 Dead 2 only to *buy the game at launch* and start playing that. Valve probably looked at all those people who made the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott and just laughed...because they knew most of them were going to buy it anyways. Likewise, Sonic team probably hears those "we're done with Sonic Forever" posts and just laughs because they know they'll just be coming back two years later after they made another game and skimped on playtesting and debugging when it makes a profit anyways. 

Nobody seems to realize that you can do this thing called "Vote with your feet". Which means *gasp* not buying something. So you hate the direction Sonic took before it was even out...so? In the end, Sonic Team still wins because you *bought* the game. So you hate DRM...I dunno, wouldn't companies respond more if people out here simply didn't buy it, rather than pirate it and further "justify" DRM? Maybe I'm old fashioned becuase I listened to what my parents rambled, but it's just a thought. Gamers really are entitled fucks, aren't they? We've been trained to expect entertainment for free.


----------



## Sulfur (Jan 17, 2012)

I'd like to see from the future of gaming to have a system that plays games of any system. Maybe a make it your own game disc where there could be a site where you can download your favorite games onto these discs then place them into the machine and you can choose what you in the mood to play. Just a idea ^,.,^


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jan 18, 2012)

More replay value.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 18, 2012)

*more t-bagging*


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 18, 2012)

Sulfur said:


> I'd like to see from the future of gaming to have a system that plays games of any system. Maybe a make it your own game disc where there could be a site where you can download your favorite games onto these discs then place them into the machine and you can choose what you in the mood to play. Just a idea ^,.,^



Didn't Japan have a system like that with the Super Famicom, actually?


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 18, 2012)

Advancements in optimisation, better gameplay, advancements in graphics, advancements in online gamemodes.
It's not that hard to recycle the same shit over and over again, but coming up with something new and innovative takes the prize, which is why I often prefer indie games


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2012)

Less Multiplayer Achievements.  These things I think are the bane of many gamers' existence.  Really these things punish more gamers than they serve because at the end of the day, some players just can't seem to control that jet in Battlefield 3 to get all the vehicle ribbons or some other related nonsense they throw in there.  Keep achievements for co-op and single player.

More hand-drawn graphics.  Arguably the best looking game this year is Rayman: Origins to me.  It's just so visually pleasing to look at.  Wario: Shake-It was similar in that way where the graphics were all drawn 2-D sprites.  I'd really like to see more of this across the board.

A return to custom soundtracks.  The new Twisted Metal is implementing this and I'd really like to see more games use this feature.  I'd rather put my music on the game than play it off my computer while playing a game.  Maybe that's just me, but I'd just think this would be a neat feature.

I'd like to see bigger, full-fledged arcade style games.  What I mean by this is games like Burnout 3 and what Bulletstorm attempted to accomplish.  Give me over-the-top versions of a genre, flashy graphics, and an extended experience.  Seriously, Burnout 3 is the only driving game I play on my old PS2 (kart racers not included).

I'm not so worried about "leveling" systems as some users have mentioned earlier in the thread.  Getting rewarded in-game for stuff you do IS fun.  It gives you a sense of accomplishment and makes you want to keep going.  Some may argue that this is an artificial feature designed soley for the purpose of keeping someone interested.  And I can totally see that.  But I do generally enjoy getting the chance to level up and get introduced to new features in the game to try out.  Black Ops kind of ruined that for me when they had the "money" feature where you can just buy the weapons you want.  I didn't bother buying everything because I found a weapon I was good with and stopped experimenting.  Granted the shotguns and snipers were terrible in that game, but I really had no interest in using them when I could just dominate with the third assault rifle I unlocked.

Moar dolphin diving and less quick-scoping.


----------



## Kaamos (Jan 18, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Less Multiplayer Achievements.  These things I think are the bane of many gamers' existence.  Really these things punish more gamers than they serve because at the end of the day, some players just can't seem to control that jet in Battlefield 3 to get all the vehicle ribbons or some other related nonsense they throw in there.  Keep achievements for co-op and single player.



Not to mention that some games' multiplayer communities go completely dead a week or two after release. It's even worse on the 360 since you pretty much have to pay to get those achievements.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 18, 2012)

bring back four player splitscreen ):


----------



## veeno (Jan 18, 2012)

Dyluck said:


> bring back four player splitscreen ):


Couch coop with my comrads on saturday night.


----------



## Sulfur (Jan 19, 2012)

^ hell ya and with pizza or bagel bites on the table........................Super Famicom? never heard of it so it probably blows so I'm talking better in thoughts for gaming consoles of all time and for more then one country...........I'd also like to see more games that use weapons to actually play games with. Like wheels and brakes for all racing games, gun-shaped weapons for shooterss, better like the ones back in the House of the Dead 2 in arcade years just to give a few ideas to improve and maybe without the need for some bar that goes a top of TV. It's money making instead of doing these online passes, we already pay internet, why pay for online... just to get yourself an extra 10 bucks? or Insane amounts of dlc...rock band, gears, cod for skins or costumes already on discs... coughcough


----------



## BRN (Jan 19, 2012)

Sulfur said:


> gun-shaped weapons for shooterss, better like the ones back in the House of the Dead 2 in arcade years



Don't forget your Time Crisis, now!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 19, 2012)

Sulfur said:


> never heard of it so it probably blows



*facepalm* Just... no.



> so I'm talking better in thoughts for gaming consoles of all time and for more then one country...........I'd also like to see more games that use weapons to actually play games with. Like wheels and brakes for all racing games, gun-shaped weapons for shooterss, better like the ones back in the House of the Dead 2 in arcade years just to give a few ideas to improve and maybe without the need for some bar that goes a top of TV.



You know, a lot of the things you listed here have reasons for simply not working out at all. Tis a shame, but it's true.



> It's money making instead of doing these online passes, we already pay internet, why pay for online... just to get yourself an extra 10 bucks? or Insane amounts of dlc...rock band, gears, cod for skins or costumes already on discs... coughcough



Xbox live requires users to pay, because providing the Xbox live service happens to cost Microsoft a lot of money. And I, too, hate paid DLC, especially for multiplayer games, HOWEVER, I fully support the idea of making people pay for e.g. costumes for their characters. Why? Because costumes do not change anything in the core gameplay whatsoever. They don't contribute to the core gameplay, and nobody gets unfair advantages for having paid for them, as opposed to other kinds of DLC. The people paying for cosmetic DLC help keep the important game-changing content FREE.


----------



## Wreth (Jan 19, 2012)

Open world games with plenty of detailed and interesting places to explore. Pretty much what Bethesda does, but i'd like much larger map, less loading screens...

I just absolutely love exploring, at least in games where a lot of detail is put into the locations, and they tell a story without a single text item or npc to tell you what happened. Like how fallout 3 can tell you a story about what happened in a building just with object placement. More of that please!


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 19, 2012)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Advancements in optimisation, better gameplay, advancements in graphics, advancements in online gamemodes.
> It's not that hard to recycle the same shit over and over again, but coming up with something new and innovative takes the prize, which is why I often prefer indie games



I love how people claim to want innovation from the big companies...they try to experiment and are met with "BOOOO! WHERE'S ZELDA?" and are met with poor reception and sales figures. 

Indie games do the same thing, and are dry-humped.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 19, 2012)

Digitalpotato said:


> I love how people claim to want innovation from the big companies...they try to experiment and are met with "BOOOO! WHERE'S ZELDA?" and are met with poor reception and sales figures.
> 
> Indie games do the same thing, and are dry-humped.



The big companies do a lot of console stuff.  Most console gamers are what I would call a cancer in the games industry.  Most console gamers don't care about new and innovative, because they don't like having to learn new and truly different things.  Most console gamers are HEAVILY influenced by peer pressure when buying due to the desire to play together in Modern Whateverthefuck 3 or Team Fortress 2.  Most console gamers are the BAD kind of casual gamer.  Consoles THEMSELVES discourage innovation or promising upstarts, even with things like XBLA ("HEY LOOK WE HAVE ALIEN HOMINID WE ARE SO INDIE FRIENDLY"), due to the fact that you can't just sit down and start programming for a console like you can with a computer.

In short: less freedom, inflexible/apathetic/juvenile audience.

Also: Big companies don't get away with the same amount of "different" indie gets away with because indie GENERALLY doesn't plaster ads here-there-everywhere and does not try to simply grab as many gamers as possible.  Indie is comfortable with starting with "niche" and moving on from there.  They have low overhead, they have more freedom to screw around, the fanbases they build are smaller but more dedicated and more likely to support them in the long run - as well as give them word-of-mouth advertising, which is better than any banner ad.  Indie gamers are more likely to treat their games as something to get INVOLVED with and venture ideas for and actually get a chance to voice things to the devs, who make themselves more accessible than big companies and big developers do (or can).

In short: Being small is a strength.

$.02, I tend to talk like my opinions are fact, I know - but that's because I think they are.

ANOTHER thing - indie devs aren't as fixated with "BEATING THE OTHER COMPANIES IN SALES RAWR" and trying to do almost EXACTLY what the other guy does but BETTER.  They like being their own thing.  They don't do the "Guitar/DJ/whatever hero vs Rock Band or CoD vs MoH vs BF" shit ad nauseum (or at least certainly not as much).


----------



## Wreth (Jan 19, 2012)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoingItForTheArt


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 20, 2012)

Tycho said:


> In short: less freedom, inflexible/apathetic/juvenile audience.



Like I said, the audience needs to grow up.

Even the PC gamer audience too - nice to see PC Exclusive stuff that like DotA or HoN ruined by the absolute worst communities on the internet.


----------



## Sulfur (Jan 21, 2012)

SIX said:


> Don't forget your Time Crisis, now!


True, but way back when Arcades existed in my neighborhood, every arcade had house of the dead and some had Time crisis. I always went to the one without the time crisis so didnt get into it much. Still hoping for the simpsons game to go into marketplace. Good times whacking people with Barts skateboard


----------

