blahblahblah next gen blah blah blah PS4 blah blah blah used

[Zing]

Why does having an upgrade, DLC or sequel mean anything? What ever happened to just not buying things you dont want? Like how much pain can having a multiplayer mode have?

"Having" DLC or multiplayer is fine. The problem is that many games are now designed around the concept of DLC or multiplayer. DLC is clearly able to hamper the final product, and multiplayer clearly comes at the cost of the single-player experience.

Think about the current switch in the MMO genre from subscription to free-to-play. I can't imagine anyone arguing that this hasn't hurt the overall satisfaction of players, despite it being "free". The game design has changed, overall for the worse, and likely forever.

[indecks]

thread = tl;dr

I havent been following any rumors. Threads on the PS4 have been popping up on different forums I go to but that's about it. For the most part, I'm skipping the next gen. I dont think its because im jaded, per se, but I'm just not interested in games as much as I used to be.

Hate to sound pirate-ish, but if they end up being hacked, then maybe I'll look into them. But I have zero interest in the Wii1.1, the 720 or the PS4.

[BoringSupreez]

Why does having an upgrade, DLC or sequel mean anything? What ever happened to just not buying things you dont want? Like how much pain can having a multiplayer mode have?

"Having" DLC or multiplayer is fine. The problem is that many games are now designed around the concept of DLC or multiplayer. DLC is clearly able to hamper the final product, and multiplayer clearly comes at the cost of the single-player experience.

Just compare the lengths of COD's single-player campaigns of the past 5 years to the campaigns in the first two games. COD 2 is like two of the modern ones put together. This trend doesn't seem to show any signs of reversing.

[Violent By Design]

Why does having an upgrade, DLC or sequel mean anything? What ever happened to just not buying things you dont want? Like how much pain can having a multiplayer mode have?

"Having" DLC or multiplayer is fine. The problem is that many games are now designed around the concept of DLC or multiplayer. DLC is clearly able to hamper the final product, and multiplayer clearly comes at the cost of the single-player experience.

I don't think that's how it works. This isn't necessarily some checks and balance system, where if you want to put points in the multiplayer, you take them out of the single player.

Video games like movies are ran by directors. Directors have visions. If a vision is met for a certain video game, then how would adding bonus features (Ie multiplayer) hurt the core attention of the product? Multiplayer is just a bonus to hopefully stimulate some replay value. I don't understand how a multiplayer mode can affect a single player mode beyond needless speculation, you would actually have to be in the developing room or have some sort of proof that this happens on a wide scale. I find it hard to believe that a developing team wouldn't focus on finishing a single player campaign on a game that's main sell is single player, before expanding onto multiplayer.

Think about the current switch in the MMO genre from subscription to free-to-play. I can't imagine anyone arguing that this hasn't hurt the overall satisfaction of players, despite it being "free". The game design has changed, overall for the worse, and likely forever.

You can't imagine why someone would rather play a free game than a game that charges 15 per month plus initial price and expansions?

I've tried a few MMOs that have went free, and I have plenty of friends that have also. I'm not even sure what you mean by the subscription thing, since before WoW and Everquest came out, all the MMOs I played were free to play.

I dont see any association in quality with free to play and paying 15 dollar per month fee (which is ridiculous).

[AppleQueso]

Why does having an upgrade, DLC or sequel mean anything? What ever happened to just not buying things you dont want? Like how much pain can having a multiplayer mode have?

"Having" DLC or multiplayer is fine. The problem is that many games are now designed around the concept of DLC or multiplayer. DLC is clearly able to hamper the final product, and multiplayer clearly comes at the cost of the single-player experience.

I don't think that's how it works. This isn't necessarily some checks and balance system, where if you want to put points in the multiplayer, you take them out of the single player.

Video games like movies are ran by directors. Directors have visions. If a vision is met for a certain video game, then how would adding bonus features (Ie multiplayer) hurt the core attention of the product? Multiplayer is just a bonus to hopefully stimulate some replay value. I don't understand how a multiplayer mode can affect a single player mode beyond needless speculation, you would actually have to be in the developing room or have some sort of proof that this happens on a wide scale. I find it hard to believe that a developing team wouldn't focus on finishing a single player campaign on a game that's main sell is single player, before expanding onto multiplayer.

Publishers like to throw a wrench into things though. They don't really care much about things like game balance and are perfectly happy to throw of your development schedule by insisting you put a robust multiplayer mode in halfway through development. That can funnel time and resources away from the single player and can hamper the final product. It's definitely a case-by-case thing though, so I'm mostly on your side here.

[8bit]

The Ouya will be cool (Im backet number 863) but its not going to compare to the gaming goodness of the PS4 or next gen Xbox. Hell I'd probably pick the next gen PSN and XBLA over the Ouya if I had to bet which would be a better gaming experience. The Ouya after all is mostly going to be just controller based android games running on a Tegra 3 processor and wont have too much big publisher support.

Square and Namco are on Board for the Ouya.

and how do we know PS4 and Next Box will be gaming goodness or more mass produced souless bullshit this gen was riddled with?

Did I mention I'm a jaded gamer?

Here are some current gen XBLA and PSN games that I think that had high production value and were very original or can be considered indie.

Braid
Sine Mora
Fez
The Walking Dead
Trails
Geometry Wars 2
Shadow Complex
PacMan DX CE
Scott Pilgram
Limbo
Ikaruga
Radiant Silvergun
Lots of Sega Classic Remakes (Guardian Heroes, Jet Grind Radio, Nights, etc, etc, etc)
Super Meat Boy
Journey
Flower
Flow
Castle Crashers

I dont think anyone could call any of the games above "soulless". You might want to try to un-jaded yourself just for some of those titles alone. The current gen produced some real classics, even if only looking at the downloadable game!

[Violent By Design]

In regards to the open source microconsoles like the Ouya and Piston, do we knowfor certain that we'll get a ton of quality indie games like Super Meat Boy and what not? If the Ouya does become the console that just streams infinite indie games for free-dirt cheap, then I might consider buying that first over the more expensive stuff this gen.

I wonder if Valve will consider making exclusives for the Piston.

Publishers like to throw a wrench into things though. They don't really care much about things like game balance and are perfectly happy to throw of your development schedule by insisting you put a robust multiplayer mode in halfway through development. That can funnel time and resources away from the single player and can hamper the final product. It's definitely a case-by-case thing though, so I'm mostly on your side here.

Indeed, I'm certain that happens plenty of times, as with any business project. But to say as a rule of thumb that multiplayer modes hinder single player modes, well there is just no basis to make such a comment!

[winds]

Although I can't wait to see what kind of games the next gen offers (hopefully shooters aren't the forefront of attention and another genre gets the limelight), i'm a little nervous about it as well. I keep reading articles from stupid gaming journalists that are trying to shove "the future of gaming" down everyones throats. Quotes like this one below from an IGN article about Microsofts IllumiRoom and that new Oculus Rift headset:

Though far-reaching change at the consumer level is most certainly a long way off, immersive gaming, through augmented or virtual realities, might be the change we’ve all been waiting for.

I hate as though he's attempting at speaking on most gamers behalf. As if we are all desperately waiting for a new control scheme or new way to play our games. Why does it have to be like that? Why does the "future of gaming" require a change in how they are played? Do movies constantly get this treatment? In 20 years am I not going to be able to sit down in a cinema and watch a movie because audiences have "been dying for" a change in the way we view them? Perhaps we no longer need Daniel Day-Lewis to act out those parts, we could wear a virtual reality helmet and act out the part ourselves!
Basically what i'm saying is, stop telling me I want new ways to play my video games. Just give me a controller, a tv, and a good game. Advance in the graphics department, invest in good stories and gameplay, those are the only advancements i want.
Or perhaps i'm wrong. Maybe millions of gamers around the world are tired of a good controller.

[AppleQueso]

Occulus Rift does look REALLY cool though...

[Violent By Design]

Although I can't wait to see what kind of games the next gen offers (hopefully shooters aren't the forefront of attention and another genre gets the limelight), i'm a little nervous about it as well. I keep reading articles from stupid gaming journalists that are trying to shove "the future of gaming" down everyones throats. Quotes like this one below from an IGN article about Microsofts IllumiRoom and that new Oculus Rift headset:

Though far-reaching change at the consumer level is most certainly a long way off, immersive gaming, through augmented or virtual realities, might be the change we’ve all been waiting for.

I hate as though he's attempting at speaking on most gamers behalf. As if we are all desperately waiting for a new control scheme or new way to play our games. Why does it have to be like that? Why does the "future of gaming" require a change in how they are played? Do movies constantly get this treatment? In 20 years am I not going to be able to sit down in a cinema and watch a movie because audiences have "been dying for" a change in the way we view them? Perhaps we no longer need Daniel Day-Lewis to act out those parts, we could wear a virtual reality helmet and act out the part ourselves!
Basically what i'm saying is, stop telling me I want new ways to play my video games. Just give me a controller, a tv, and a good game. Advance in the graphics department, invest in good stories and gameplay, those are the only advancements i want.
Or perhaps i'm wrong. Maybe millions of gamers around the world are tired of a good controller.

Well, in regards to movies there is the whole 3D movement thing.