The Room 101 Thread

[calgoblin]

Room 101 is an unimaginably torturous room originating from a novel by George Orwell. I thought it'd be fun to do our own version, where you can argue what you'd put into Room 101 within a certain topic which is: Gaming.

So what thing related to Gaming would you like to see locked away and never seen or heard from again?

I shall start, and mine is is regenerative health. Personally I feel it detracts a lot from the game unless there is a narrative reason for it being there, such as Halo where the futuristic suit of armour can recharge itself. But in games like Call of Duty or [insert modern shooter game here] having health that regenerates just by crouching behind a wall for a few seconds totally destroys any sort of fun I was having. It's almost as if devs try to take the challenge away, because some of the most memorable gaming moments are when you've been hit a few times and are timidly hunting in every corner for a health pack. To me having regenerating health in a game destroys any sense of immersion and, unless it's done well with good reasoning behind it, makes it much less enjoyable. It also makes them less fun, and is probably the only good thing I can say about Aliens: Colonial Marines.

 

[volcol]

Call of Duty, kthanxbye

 

[VonMudra]

the last Medal of Honour WW2 game.

 

[Moody]

Unlocks. Every shape and form of them.

 

[Sir Apple]

Unlocks. Every shape and form of them.

I'm sure at one point, unlocks were cool. I liked them back in call of duty 4 for instance.

 

[brrr]

I think we can all agree about where this particular title can go. Good riddance to bad rubbish .

 

[calgoblin]

I've lost all hope in Gearbox now, especially after this.

 

[volcol]

I lost hope in gearbox a while back, when they announced the new BIA would be an Inglorious Bastards rip off. They since dropped 'furious four' from the franchise however, it took a few months of nothing but poor reception for them to change their minds about the branding. Faith won't be restored until the follow on from Hells Highway comes through where they hinted at the battle of the bulge

 

[brrr]

I lost hope in gearbox a while back, when they announced the new BIA would be an Inglorious Bastards rip off. They since dropped 'furious four' from the franchise however, it took a few months of nothing but poor reception for them to change their minds about the branding. Faith won't be restored until the follow on from Hells Highway comes through where they hinted at the battle of the bulge

Yeah I agree, I hope that they release another proper brothers in arms game. That inglorious bastards thing was a total disgrace in my opinion - especially seeing as they slapped on the brothers in arms branding onto it.

Then again for hells highway they did the exact same thing as they did for aliens. They release awesome looking alpha build game-play and then release a game that is utterly different and inferior. Admittedly hells highway was a good game but not anywhere near to the quality of the original footage they showed.

 

[General Naga]

Ubisoft uPlay would be top of my list to be locked away and never heard of again. Completely unnecessary, buggy and useless piece of DRM.

 

[chad509]

I feel awful for the people that pre-orderd Aliens: CM. Shame on you gearbox for misleading the fans with the awesome demo footage. I couldn't even play the game for 15 min it was soo awful.

 

[Sir Apple]

I recall hearing that there was a lot of 'video game drama' around the development of Aliens CM, which was a huge reason why it turned out like it did.

In fact I don't even think Gearbox ended up leading the games production. Quite a few articles out there explaining;

So ... who the hell DID make Aliens: Colonial Marines? - Destructoid

 

[Moody]

I'm sure at one point, unlocks were cool. I liked them back in call of duty 4 for instance.

Indeed, it was new and fresh in cod4, and I did like it in cod4. I more hate how it has leaked into so many games.

 

[calgoblin]

Indeed, it was new and fresh in cod4, and I did like it in cod4. I more hate how it has leaked into so many games.

I think unlocks are a good way to keep you interested by rewarding you for completing challenges/levels etc. But I don't like the system in CoDs because it just means you get all the powerful guns only after you've played it for eleven hundred hours or whatever. I think having a system where you have access to everything from the start, but you only have a certain number of tokens/credits to unlock weapons/equipment, and you can gain more by completing the challenges or leveling up. That means you won't have all the people who've played it constantly since launch and are level 9billion with their overpowered rifles destroying anyone else who so much thinks of fighting back. This way you could have access to the uber-rifle once you've reached level 2 by choosing to unlock it.

Black Ops had a system combining the two which just seems a little pointless to me.

 

[titsmcgee852]

Edit: misread thread. Now how do I delete this bad boy

 

[Moody]

I think unlocks are a good way to keep you interested by rewarding you for completing challenges/levels etc. But I don't like the system in CoDs because it just means you get all the powerful guns only after you've played it for eleven hundred hours or whatever. I think having a system where you have access to everything from the start, but you only have a certain number of tokens/credits to unlock weapons/equipment, and you can gain more by completing the challenges or leveling up. That means you won't have all the people who've played it constantly since launch and are level 9billion with their overpowered rifles destroying anyone else who so much thinks of fighting back. This way you could have access to the uber-rifle once you've reached level 2 by choosing to unlock it.

Black Ops had a system combining the two which just seems a little pointless to me.

I get your point, and agree with it. My problem with unlocks in most games is that it often feels like a tacked on gimmick that's either frustrating to deal with, or a cover up for poor gameplay. A game should be fun to play and re-play with or without unlocks, not dependent on unlocks to keep the game interesting.

I remember when I got into Battlefield 3 the unlocks really frustrated me not because they existed, but because, like you pointed out, some unlocks are plain upgrades rather than side grades (especially for armor/air vehicles). There's also a strategy game called Wargame European Escalation that actually had you unlock more units to use ingame, and that rustled my jimmies because it just made no sense to me to add that type of mechanic to a strategy game.

Either way, I've had more than my fill of games with unlocks, and am ready for more games that can keep me coming back without such a system.

 

[calgoblin]

I get your point, and agree with it. My problem with unlocks in most games is that it often feels like a tacked on gimmick that's either frustrating to deal with, or a cover up for poor gameplay. A game should be fun to play and re-play with or without unlocks, not dependent on unlocks to keep the game interesting.

True, I think shooter games with multiplayer in particular have all just added these 'get x amount of points to unlock x weapon' just because of CoD and how financially successful it's been. Whereas the post-CoD multiplayers all had weapons scattered around the level that everyone had access too, and I had great fun with that in the original Halo.

I've never really liked the whole 'play game for hundreds of hours' to unlock everything then you'll be invincible against every single new player. How about a system of 'downgrades' where, in BF3 for instance, you start off with all the tank armour and upgrades and such and over many levels loses speed, armour protection etc? It wouldn't be so damaging to new players and those who've played it for 60+ hours can't just rely on their fancy upgrades for success and still have a challenge?

 

[calgoblin]

I'll just leave this here... DRM disaster plagues SimCity launch

Pretty sure this sort of thing promotes more people to pirate a game, meaning when publishers moan about how much they lose due to pirated downloads, they only have themselves to blame. Always-on DRM is pointless, especially in a purely singleplayer game. Get rid of it now.

 

[General Naga]

I do honestly wonder whether they actually test these things sometimes - a small studio might reasonably claim they don't have the budget for large scale stress testing but these have no excuse.

Is this perhaps what they mean by online single player?

 

[Maniche]

I bought the game actually, and struggled a bit playing on the release-date because of contant downtime on their servers. After a few tries it seemed to be running fine I guess, but yeah - bugging me that you need to be online at all times, but I guess it's because of the online save-function I reckon.

Or I hope there's an online save-function, because I couldn't find any save button...

Maniche