What are your "red flags" in gaming?

[patch.macho.2007]

Something that when you see it, it makes you skeptical of a game's success or quality.

Of course they're not 100% accurate, but when you follow the industry for a while, you notice some tells and patterns like these.

Like, for me when the devs try to force a hip label like "The Dark Souls of FPS" or "The -popular game- Killer". That's a red flag.

When the DLC costs more than the base game and there is a ridiculous amount of it.

Early access survival.

[Radene]

Oh, the usual. Being advertised as if it's the bloody second coming, focus on online, getting described as "mature", "groundbreaking", or "thought-provoking"....

Not that I don't like such games, but the ones calling themselves that usually aren't.

[Clyan]

Difficult to point a finger at anything really since I haven't played a good game for a while now.
While for example Deep Rock or Valheim certainly are games that I'd consider more classical (and therefor better in my personal opinion), they still lack innovation just like any other new title, be it an AAA product or not.

I find it incredibly hard to say what makes a game good for me, tho I'd say it's probably the successful developement in all aspects hitting the greatest common denominator - which hardly ever was achieved in the industry in the first place.

The main goal should always be innovation: developing a new system or gameplay that wasn't there before.
And while most probably would argue that this is basically impossible now that all genres have been explored, I'd argue that this point of view is rather a follow up of our unnimaginative and cowardly age and time, where investors are not willing to take risks and where those that are in charge of directing the product have no real sense for art or simply no new ideas.

Overall this industry is plagued by shallow products and invasive marketing paired with consumers that cannot comprehend the possibilities beyond their own experiences.

That said, early access games naturally seem to be a new solution, however they aren't. Most of them rather resemble a scam than the intent to circumvent financial and therefor artistic interference / cencorship. And especially if the game comes with content that one could consider AAA.

And yes, I know, there are exceptions, but they're rare.

Apart from that a clear red flag to me is when a game receives huge marketing and promises a lot of things that are sensationally presented as "revolutionairy" when actually - if you think about it pragmatically - they aren't anything new at all.

[gugnihr]

It is recent? (let's say it was released after 2014 more or less) If yes then that's a HUGE red flag with only some exceptions.

[AD]

Messaggio originale di pablo.macho.2007:

Something that when you see it, it makes you skeptical of a game's success or quality.

Of course they're not 100% accurate, but when you follow the industry for a while, you notice some tells and patterns like these.

Like, for me when the devs try to force a hip label like "The Dark Souls of FPS" or "The -popular game- Killer". That's a red flag.

When the DLC costs more than the base game and there is a ridiculous amount of it.

Early access survival.

2 things comes to mind:
* Too much hype.
* When the "devs" plans to excessively monetize the game (like microtransactions, lootboxes etc).

Also the reason I put devs in quotation marks is because I suspect it's often the publishers and executives that pushes stuff like that rather then the actual devs, but that's just a feeling I have.

[Incarnate]

The fine print in trailers that reads: "This footage is not representative of actual gameplay."

It screams buggy, half-finished mess.

[the vampire of time and memory]

women wearing clothes in videogames

like wtf can we just stop with the censorship guys?? you know the people you're pandering to (non sex offenders) don't even play games??

[lightwo]

Messaggio originale di the vampire of time and memory:

women wearing clothes in videogames, like wtf can we just stop with the censorship guys?? you know the people you're pandering to (non sex offenders) don't even play games??

Lol. I cannot relate about that half, but I'm sure you know mods better than me, if you're on that topic.

[Joe Cool]

I only have two real red flags that will cause me to completely and totally ignore a game.



- "Dedicated servers confirmed"

I take this statement as a sign to avoid that game like the plague because any time a dev says this it is in reality a confirmation of two things.

1) It will be run solely on a matchmaking algorithm designed exclusively for consoles. (a system that was and continues to be inferior to actual dedicated servers in every conceivable way)

2) The "dedicated servers" will in reality be virtual servers run on centralized data centers and thus they will lack ALL of the benefits provided by having actual dedicated servers.


- "Free to play"

This automatically means it will be complete and total garbage designed to suck you in and brainwash you into spending money.

There is no such thing as a good free to play game. Literally every single one of them is designed solely around giving you flashy rewards to trigger a rush of dopamine in your brain and get you addicted.

That's why all of them are cut/paste copies of multiple other games mashed together. The people who make them aren't trying to make a fun game with a story, they are trying to brainwash people into sending them cash.

[Peter]

Xray vision!

[Devsman]

Kinda surprising to hear hype and quotes to the effect of "revolutionary" or whatever tbh. You really expect the publisher's own marketing department not to try to make it look as good as possible?

[makew_3410]

Messaggio originale di Devsman:

Kinda surprising to hear hype and quotes to the effect of "revolutionary" or whatever tbh. You really expect the publisher's own marketing department not to try to make it look as good as possible?

i expect a game to not be ass

[Devsman]

Messaggio originale di makew_3410:

Messaggio originale di Devsman:

Kinda surprising to hear hype and quotes to the effect of "revolutionary" or whatever tbh. You really expect the publisher's own marketing department not to try to make it look as good as possible?

i expect a game to not be ass

Right but if it is, it's not the marketers' fault.

[Radene]

Messaggio originale di Devsman:

Kinda surprising to hear hype and quotes to the effect of "revolutionary" or whatever tbh. You really expect the publisher's own marketing department not to try to make it look as good as possible?

No, I just think they should be drawn and quartered for it.

[Devsman]

Messaggio originale di Radene:

Messaggio originale di Devsman:

Kinda surprising to hear hype and quotes to the effect of "revolutionary" or whatever tbh. You really expect the publisher's own marketing department not to try to make it look as good as possible?

No, I just think they should be drawn and quartered for it.

Well, for what? For trying to sell the product?

[Mr. Tex]

When they market the game using ratings by Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, etc ... i.e. when it's a high likelihood the reviewer is someone who knows very little about gaming and the game itself.

The more hyped a game is, typically the result of mainstream media posting a huge number of shorter videos about the game supported with hyperboles.

Games that include socio-political messaging in their marketing of the game ( "features LBTQUVZXWPHIFDS1c7sO ... characters" ). In these games the messaging is the focus, not the story or gameplay, so it feels more like an interactive political add than a game. The narrative is typically rather bad in these games. I don't mind "representation" but there should still be standards in the quality of the writing, as in Gone Home for example.

When the developer or publisher is openly political with their messaging, i.e. Pixel Pushers Union ("Tonight We Riot") and Means LLC (anti-capitalist publisher, supported crazy lady AOC in her campaign). The game is basically an antifa-simulator.