If you could change one thing about gaming

[Twigg4075]

Get rid of paid for online services and paid DLC.

That's one thing the PC gamers have gotten right.

[SethMode]

JRPGs to not die away.

I'm actually ecstatic about the fact that this seems to be happening. JRPGs are a terrible form of video games now-a-days. At least with most WRPGs you perform many actions yourself. JRPGs are effectively extremely limited flash games that have pretty graphics because they don't need to spend anytime on actual gameplay. I used to love the old ones, but the genre died for good reason: it's built for a time when they couldn't do what they can now. They'd be better off re-imagining themselves for stuff like XBLA.

For me, I'd personally wish for the industry to back away from the multiplayer and co-op focus. Not saying don't do it, just only do it if it makes sense for the game you're trying to make. Don't tack it on just because it *needs* to be there.

[SethMode]

Get rid of paid for online services and paid DLC.

That's one thing the PC gamers have gotten right.

PC gamers pay for DLC for the most part, unless said DLC is made by the community (ala, something like Morrowind, which had an insane number of mods, etc...made by gamers).

[Twigg4075]

I'm actually ecstatic about the fact that this seems to be happening. JRPGs are a terrible form of video games now-a-days. At least with most WRPGs you perform many actions yourself. JRPGs are effectively extremely limited flash games that have pretty graphics because they don't need to spend anytime on actual gameplay. I used to love the old ones, but the genre died for good reason: it's built for a time when they couldn't do what they can now. They'd be better off re-imagining themselves for stuff like XBLA.

I couldn't agree more. I despise JRPG's. What is the fucking point of a turn based battle? Go watch a fucking movie!

[Bear Pand]

I'd lower dev costs and do something to get rid of licenses (or at least lower the price of them). This would allow more companies to be able to put out games, meaning more variety, more competition and hopefully more creativity in the end.

Right now things are way too stale. Too many sequels and similar games. I think it's at least partially because there's not many companies and it's too expensive to take risks. So everyone just sticks to known formulas and we get the same basic games over and over.

I really don't understand how people get so excited about the new COD, new Halo, new whatever. Just the same shit you've seen a million times with a few new twists. I do the same thing with NBA2k and to a lesser extent NCAA Football...but whatever.

---

I'd also get rid of game reviews from sites like IGN.

[Hitman]

holograms.. that is all

[strahanfan92]

No more patches. I'm sorry more times then not they hurt the game more than they help. Not to mention, it's absolutely ridiculous that developers can release a game that is broken just because they can, "fix it after launch".. Especially when the broken part of the game is something that can be seen by playing 3 games such as the HB screen in NCAA where the qb runs backwards 40 yards than turns around to throw the ball. I mean, do they have mfers test games anymore?

[Buzzman]

I'm actually ecstatic about the fact that this seems to be happening. JRPGs are a terrible form of video games now-a-days. At least with most WRPGs you perform many actions yourself. JRPGs are effectively extremely limited flash games that have pretty graphics because they don't need to spend anytime on actual gameplay. I used to love the old ones, but the genre died for good reason: it's built for a time when they couldn't do what they can now. They'd be better off re-imagining themselves for stuff like XBLA.

For me, I'd personally wish for the industry to back away from the multiplayer and co-op focus. Not saying don't do it, just only do it if it makes sense for the game you're trying to make. Don't tack it on just because it *needs* to be there.

Turned based games where the emo hero saves the princess is a tale as old as time. What a classic. The games, when done right are the best in gaming. PS1 and PS2 had so many, they were awesome days. Now 360 has 5-6 and thats about it.

[Twigg4075]

PC gamers pay for DLC for the most part, unless said DLC is made by the community (ala, something like Morrowind, which had an insane number of mods, etc...made by gamers).

Really? Besides MW2 every time I heard of a DLC release that came out multiplatform the PC version was free.

[SethMode]

Turned based games where the emo hero saves the princess is a tale as old as time. What a classic. The games, when done right are the best in gaming. PS1 and PS2 had so many, they were awesome days. Now 360 has 5-6 and thats about it.

How old are you? If by "tale as old as time" you mean "tale as old as the PS1 era" then sure, it's "old as time". Final Fantasy 7 was the first real "emo character gets girl" RPG. The first 6 before that in that series alone weren't emo at all.

The point about it being an emo character is moot (and a bad point anyway, emo characters are fucking lame). The point is, the medium has advanced far beyond the necessity for the JRPGs.

[SethMode]

Really? Besides MW2 every time I heard of a DLC release that came out multiplatform the PC version was free.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "DLC" is. Map packs I think are often free for PC guys (not 100% on this though because I don't do online multiplayer much on PC), and like I said, most if not all user generated stuff is, but if you look at stuff like add-on content you mostly have to pay (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Borderlands, etc...). Also, PC guys get expansion packs, which could often be labeled the same as what you're thinking DLC is.

I would agree that map packs should be free. Anything that presents new gameplay content though (as in, say, Borderlands) is totally justified to have a price tag on it.

[SethMode]

I couldn't agree more. I despise JRPG's. What is the fucking point of a turn based battle? Go watch a fucking movie!

Well, there are games that involve turn based play that I can appreciate (like Civilization), but my problem with JRPGs is that they're dated because they come from a time when they wanted to display fantastic action but didn't have the ability to either a) do it at all in the SNES days; or b) do it and have the graphics hold up. Clearly it's possible to do now, so having a "game" where you just select "fight" for the sake of being like older, more dated games, is silly.

It's especially bad in newer JRPGs honestly, because now they tack on silly shit like time sensitive things to keep you more "engaged" in the gameplay (they've done this in the past but every new one seems to have it now). I played through Lost Odyssey much to my dismay and you have these rings you have to line up to have a more powerful attack...that's it. That's your involvement.

[Bmore]

I would have loved if Nintendo/Sony made that deal they had back before the Playstation. Then we'd have Mario, Link and Samus on PS3.

[riley420]

I would ask that MS stop making everything for the 360 proprietary. If I could save $150 by being able to use a 1 TB drive of my choosing, I would probably spend a little more money on DLC...movies, etc. Instead, I'm still using my 20 GB and not making any plans to replace it...especially for $150.

[Derrville]

Id want a full 3D pokemon RPG game. However instead of turn based Id make the battle sequence similar to Super Smash Brothers where you have full control of what your player does with certain buttons configured to the type of move you want to do.

That would be the ultimate.