In Games Radar's "Week of Hate" they have listed their thirteen most hated gaming innovations of all time.
I'm sure many gamers will nod their head in agreement at most (if not all) of these innovations.
(go to source for full list)
From gameplay mechanics to design flaws - these are the most heinous offenders of gaming ...
Swimming
Why developers thought it would rock:
Having conquered land and air, videogames took to the sea as a fresh and exciting landscape for item hunts and ambient soft-jazz soundtracks. If the original Super Mario Bros. perfected it in 1985, then every game should have an entire level devoted to exploring the abyss, right?
Why it sucks:
As amazing as that sounds, you’re also treated to sluggish movement as you inch towards your goal like a sperm without a tail. Using modified flight controls, game developers insist you struggle with analog sticks while praying you don’t swim off course. Screw up and you’re stuck endlessly circling about like a handicapped buzzard in a pool of molasses.
From Grand Theft Auto to Tomb Raider and even the brand-new Super Mario Galaxy, not one game in recent memory has perfected swimming or made it remotely fun, no matter how many times it’s given us a glimpse into Lara Croft’s birth canal.
-
Lens flare
Why the developer thought it rocked:
The aim of every game artist circa 1999 was the ability to simulate a lens flare which happens when a bright-ass light source reflects off a camera lens, creating off-color rings and starbursts. That’s pretty awesome when you’re trying to simulate how realistic your game is…
Why it sucks:
We do appreciate the irony that technology is being used to "realistically" duplicate something that we'd never see in real life because it only happens when you view the sun through a camera lens.
The lens flare does absolutely nothing to gameplay, except when it actually obscures our ability to see what the hell is happening.
There’s nothing like playing through a mediocre game with crap controls and stuttering animations only to come upon a glorious sunset with sunbeams streaking across your TV. Thanks for sinking cash into something that matters, developers.
-
Destructible environments
Why developers thought they would rock:
Game makers heard us cry foul after we complained our rocket launchers were able to turn Nazis and zombies into mush, yet wouldn’t make a dent in brick walls or chain-link fences. Determined to right this paradox, we were promised destructible environments that would give us a leg-up on the Third Reich. Imagine laying waste to an entire city block to take out pursuing enemy units or flattening a building to bottleneck tanks into a cleverly positioned trap.
Why they suck:
That would be great; instead we get scenery that crumbles the same way every time alongside the same damn impervious walls. Essentially nothing has changed, except an increase in rubble.
-
3D
Why the developers thought it would rock:
The logical progression of technology and gaming is the addition of the Z-axis. Depth brings, well, depth to gaming.
Why it sucks:
It’s not that we hate 3D, but rather what 3D has done to consistently set back gaming. Look no further than the same example 2D fanboys have touted for years - gameplay is just not as tight or refined.
Gaming is now about constantly readjusting. We can’t do anything without swinging that damn camera around for a proper view. Where’s the fun in that?
Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
~Jai~
i mean the transition of 2d to 3d is a bad thing? jesus christ, lets all go back to side scrolling games then, mario anyone?
edit. actually reading the other article of "78 things gameradar hates" and this
now, isnt that considered destrucible enviroment? yet above, they no like it
These "hate" articles are all in a bit of fun. And if you don't take it so seriously, you can see that they do bring up some good points.
Any gamer should know what GR are talking about when they say that destructable environments aren't as destructable as they should be, or why moving to 3D brought up a whole new bunch of problems including shoddy camera angles and developers spending too much time on graphics and not enough time on gameplay/difficulty.
Also, destructible environments have been disappointments for the most part but in theory they are no doubt an extraordinary goal. Crysis does it best so far.
What's wrong with lens flares? They're useless in 2d photoshop images but in a game they look fine, even great, when you pan your camera around and catch the sun casting a lens flare over your character.
This is a terrible freaking article. Atrocious actually.
~FFXFREAK
E.G: THrow a box at the top of a window and it'll break a bit of the top and middle but the bottam will still be standing.
Some of these things though I quite like, such as the destructable environments one. They all add realism to the games. No doubt people would be complaining of games being unrealistic if they were absent.
Anyway I wrote something about this about a week ago on Neo.