Addressing Complaints About Modern Gaming

  Before we start I need to make a couple things clear. First being that I am, in no way, saying that most complaints about the modern means of playing video games are illegitimate. I have many complaints myself. However, I am one to point out flaws in arguments, no matter which side I'm on. So, I'd like to take this time to address some common complaints many have with the current, and next generation of console/PC gaming.

  Also, my computer is currently down. I am currently typing this all on another laptop. Hopefully I'll have my own computer up, and running soon. Just addressing this minor inconvenience while I can.

Today's Videogames Focus Too Much On Online Multiplayer 

  I have made this complaint, myself, quite a bit. I find myself wanting a nice, single player campaign only to find that it has been stripped down to focus more on the online multiplayer features. It's infuriating. If a publisher wanted it's players to only play the multiplayer then why even feature a single player campaign? Some days I just want to sit, alone, on my couch (probably at least partially naked), and enjoy a game with only peace, and quiet as my partners. Sometimes I don't like being reminded of the numerous teenagers my mother has had affairs with.

  With that said, online multiplayer isn't all bad. I remember back when I was in middle school, and playing an online match of Unreal Tournament at a friend's house. I was blown away. Up to that point, getting a multiplayer match of...well...anything was a hassle. I had to invite friends, they had to get permission from their mothers, etc. There was a lot of leg work involved. Now there's this magical thing called "online multiplayer", and I could connect with people all over the world, and we could play video games. This was a utopia I had only previously fantasized about. Also, there was no split screen. So, no one could cheat by looking at my screen. 

  I still don't get why online multiplayer is the primary focus of most modern games is online multiplayer, but that's mostly because I'm older now. I have a job. I don't have as much time to waste playing video games as I used to. Plus, getting older naturally makes some people more cynical. However, the teenage me loved the idea of online multiplayer, and, to some degree, I still do. I do miss having split screen multiplayer, but that's something I frequently look at through rose tinted glasses. Most of my friends have families, and/or jobs. Getting a group together when we were teenagers, and our only concern in the world at the time was the due date of a school project was a hassle enough. It'd be near impossible now. 

DLC is ruining games 

  I look at a game like Batman: Arkham City, see the Catwoman missions (something that is part of the actual game) are part of a DLC bundle, and become infuriated. Why in Satan's fiery dick should I pay extra for something that is part of the fucking game?? Why not...oh, I don't know, leave it in the game that I shelled out 60 bones for to begin with? In that respect, DLC is a leech in the form of code. 

There's a special place reserved at the deepest bowels of Hell for EA. 

  To counter my own argument, allow me to tell you all another story from my childhood. It's about the time I discovered these magical things known as expansion packs. See, I was completely in love with this one game, Diablo II. I spent the time in school that should have been dedicated to studying going over strategies in my head on how to clear the dungeon I had been stuck on. So, naturally when the expansion pack came out, Lord of Destruction, I had to have it. I wanted it mostly for the new quests, but was pleasantly surprised to find out that two new playable classes had been added. That was like the same level of excitement as if I had found out my parents were splitting up, and I'd get two Christmases, and birthdays. 

  DLCs, for the most part, serve the same function as expansion packs. They're put there to gives us a little more of the experience we enjoyed with the original game (and to make money, of course). And, since DLC is digital, you don't have to get off your ass, and leave the house to get them. Just pay the fee, and download the product. My teenage head would've exploded if I found out that option was available. 

Games focus too much on graphics nowadays

  I hate it when someone is describing a game, and the first words out of their mouth praises the graphics. I don't care if Super Skullcrusher 3 runs in 1080p, is it fun? A game's mechanics should not become second to it's graphics. A good example of this is Sonic '06 (brace for the flood of Sonic fans). That game was pretty damn gorgeous for it's time, but was bugged so badly that it was nearly unplayable. Also, a lot of people confuse graphics with aesthetics, thus causing developers to mostly focus on graphics. Graphics are, for the most part, shading, polygon count, etc. Aesthetic has more to do with how the game looks. Color pallets, and so on.

   Now, let's look at a good example. Take a look at Naughty Dog's most recent IP, The Last of Us. The Last of Us not only looked good, but had solid gameplay to back the graphics up. Also, the look of the game helped to covey the overall message of the story. This is where graphics, and aesthetics shine. Better visuals could lead to better stories. In today's video game market a story line is just as important as everything else. Visuals help to convey the story better. 

  That's not to say that a game needs good graphics, and aesthetics to tell a good story. Take Limbo, for example. This game is completely in black and white, with only the silhouettes of the main characters, and what few NPCs shown. Yet Limbo manages to suck the player right in, and have them sympathizing with the main character who is only wanting to find out if his sister is at peace in the after-life.

Modern games aren't as challenging as older games

  I remember when I first played the game Ghosts 'n Goblins. To date, that game is still considered one of the most difficult games ever made. Ghosts 'n Goblins ruined more childhoods than the bike shop episode of Different Strokes (watch at your own discretion). I screamed at that game until my voice went out. Which made it all the more satisfying when I beat a level. I miss that in video games.

  The truth is, I mainly miss that element of games because it resembles something familiar from my childhood. I'm older now, and with aging comes bitterness, and becoming jaded to nearly everything you love. The only reasons games were that difficult back then was because they were either in arcades, and that's how the cabinets made their money, or because the console limitations of the time made making games difficult essential to stretching out the gameplay, and life span of the game. 

  With the capabilities of today's consoles, and PCs, making a game ludicrously difficult to make the player feel like they get every penny's worth they paid for it isn't necessary. Just take a look at The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. There are so many side quests, and optional objectives that the game can last far longer than just the main story line. This isn't only capable in open-world games either. Going back to The Last of Us, that game lasted me about thirteen hours of combined gameplay, and I didn't even grab all the collectibles, or see all the easter eggs. Also, if multiplayer is your thing, the online multiplayer has it's own separate story line. 

 Microtransactions are evil 

  A few months ago, Square Enix released a Final Fantasy game on mobile devices called Final Fantasy: All the Bravest. This installment of the series promised to let players play as key characters from the Final Fantasy universes. What they didn't tell you is that the game was made impossibly difficult so that players were left with two options; wait until your characters revive, or purchase more characters (selected at random), or golden hour glasses to revive instantly. This was considered to be the most greedy move ever made by Square Enix. 

 Also know as "money vacuum" to everyone that has ever played it. 

  Now, let's look at a good example. Around 2010 an indie game known as Path of Exile was being developed. Now in open beta, Path of Exile is completely free to play, getting their funding from donations, and "ethical microtransactions". The in game purchases of Path of Exile change only aesthetic features (clothing, accessories, etc), and has no bearing on gameplay whatsoever. 

  Microtransactions, like many other features that are starting to be put in games, are really like a double edged sword. On one hand they can completely vilify a company that implements them solely to make more money. On the flip side, they can be used to fund great games that would otherwise have little to no funding. 

In closing 

  Many of the problems most of us have with modern games are legitimate problems, but there is good along with bad in most of these instances. If all we mention are the bad then that is all developers, and/or publishers are seeing, and could scrap the ideas altogether; even the good parts. The good needs to be focused on just as much as the bad so that the powers that be behind our video games could see that feed back, and, hopefully, focus more on the good aspects. Video games, as much as they are an art form, is a business. No business person in their right mind would do something that the customers don't want to happen. They're far more interested in making money. Just look at the Xbox One's policy reversal. 

  I want to thank what few readers I have for checking out my blogs, and listening to me rant, and rave about video games, and other nerdy shit. It means a lot to have an outlet for my opinions, and to have people to listen to me. So, thanks for putting up with me.