I did not know games could be bad

[grommet]

I played COD Modern Warfare and it is one of the best games I have played. Wonderful in every way. The graphics, sound, acting, weapons, maps, mechanics. I wanted to play more COD, I thought the next game would be great. I played COD Black Ops 6, it is terrible. I am told it uses a different engine. I am not sure what that means but the graphics, everything about the game looks 10-15 years old. I tried but I could not keep playing it.

I thought if a good studio spent a lot of money making a game and knows that gamers will notice the difference, they could not make something bad. Would they not see the game before they sold it and see it was bad? It cost $59.99 and that is too much for me so I got Game Pass for $11.99 so I could play it. I am so glad, I would have been upset. I am still so confused how they could make a bad game if they also made a great game and it is the same series. It does not make sense.

I am trying to play COD Modern Warfare II, it comes with Game Pass but it will not play. I am downloading all the DLC now to see if it needs that though I only ever play by myself in Campaign.

 

[Outdated]

I've had the same issue with a couple of franchises. One of the series I loved the most and still play from time to time is the Total War series - Shogun, Medieval, and Rome. Shogun came out in the late 90s and the graphics was quite dated but it was a really good game. 15 years later they released an updated version of it with better graphics and I just had to have it.

With much better quality graphics they became limited by how much a graphics card can handle at any one time, so they reduced the size of the playable maps to so small that you started off almost immediately on top of your enemy and there was no room to maneuver and make use of the terrain before starting to fight. So a tactical game where it's not possible to use any tactics.

I was very disappointed. I still play the original sometimes.

 

[Judge]

That's how I came to learn how to build personal computers. In the late 80s I went to Egghead to buy what I thought would be a blast. LucasArts' "Their Finest Hour: Battle of Britain". A DOS world war two flight simulator.

Oh boy, this was gonna be great! Until I installed it and tried to run the program, only to get a text message on my monitor" "Insufficient Conventional Memory". I was pissed! And had no idea what this meant.

I wanted to play this so badly I started to research DOS 3 at the time, and fully immerse myself into understanding and customizing some critical files at boot up for DOS- config.sys and autoexec.bat.
Learned in time what it took to run my game and I was off and running. Er uh....flying.

But after that I became as interested in optimizing DOS and eventually Windows 3.1 as well. Every bit as much as playing lots of computer games back then. I remember even making an icon for the simulation for Windows 3.1. Back when Windows was only a GUI and DOS was the actual OS. I had so much fun with it back then. Windows 95 spoiled it all the fun.

Their Finest Hour (video game) - Wikipedia

 

[Misery]

I thought if a good studio spent a lot of money making a game and knows that gamers will notice the difference, they could not make something bad. Would they not see the game before they sold it and see it was bad?

This is sort of what I was talking about before: The studio... or to be more accurate, the people who make decisions for the studio... do not CARE. Like, at all. In a lot of cases, I'd be surprised if the ones making the decisions have ever touched a video game themselves. They dont care about the product, and they DEFINITELY dont care about the consumers.

This doesnt apply to ALL companies, mind you. But it absolutely applies to the one behind the CoD franchise. The developers have real talent there, sure. You've seen what they're capable of doing. But the developers arent in charge. The corporate suits are, and THEY dont care one bit.

Just as an example of how much they dont care, Activision (the ones behind the franchise) are notorious for that one time when they boasted that they had a record year in profits, oh boy! Wow! Amazing! And then they rewarded everyone by laying off 800 employees. Think about that for a moment. And that's not exactly a unique incident. Nor is it the only horrible thing that particular company has done (that's a DEEP rabbit hole there).


Now that all being said, a game coming out badly doesnt automatically mean that the company behind it is being run by Satan or something. Sometimes someone with the absolute best intentions goes to make something, trying their best, and maybe they've made great things before... but the next thing just turns out wrong. It happens in any creative field, not just this one.


That being said, ideas on what constitutes a good game VS a bad game can vary WILDLY. Like if you were to ask me to show you games that I personally think are great, not a single one of them is going to have realistic graphics, and most of them wont even be in 3D. Heck, a couple of all time favorites of mine are incredibly primitive. Like, "released 40 years ago" sort of primitive. Wheras I just outright dont like a lot of modern high-production games (aka, most AAA games). Or heck, you might find other people who love shooters, but they disagree on certain points about/in those shooters.

Just differences in taste, that's all. What one likes, another may dislike. Which is fine, so long as nobody is yelling at each other over it or throwing insults around.

 

[grommet]

I've had the same issue with a couple of franchises. One of the series I loved the most and still play from time to time is the Total War series - Shogun, Medieval, and Rome. Shogun came out in the late 90s and the graphics was quite dated but it was a really good game. 15 years later they released an updated version of it with better graphics and I just had to have it.

With much better quality graphics they became limited by how much a graphics card can handle at any one time, so they reduced the size of the playable maps to so small that you started off almost immediately on top of your enemy and there was no room to maneuver and make use of the terrain before starting to fight. So a tactical game where it's not possible to use any tactics.

I was very disappointed. I still play the original sometimes.

That is very interesting. I am fascinated by your understanding of the game. I never knew about things like that, that changes in graphics could affect how the game plays. I have to learn a lot. I love large maps and moving patiently, slowly, beating my opponents that way. I feel like it is my autistic advantage, I can wait forever. They get bored and move on, I stay focused on them and get them. Fun.

I have COD Modern Warfare II working now. ChatGPT gave me terrible advice. Once I downloaded all the DLC files instead of just the base game and Campaign, it worked.

 

[grommet]

That's how I came to learn how to build personal computers. In the late 80s I went to Egghead to buy what I thought would be a blast. LucasArts' "Their Finest Hour: Battle of Britain". A DOS world war two flight simulator.

Oh boy, this was gonna be great! Until I installed it and tried to run the program, only to get a text message on my monitor" "Insufficient Conventional Memory". I was pissed! And had no idea what this meant.

I wanted to play this so badly I started to research DOS 3 at the time, and fully immerse myself into understanding and customizing some critical files at boot up for DOS- config.sys and autoexec.bat.
Learned in time what it took to run my game and I was off and running. Er uh....flying.

But after that I became as interested in optimizing DOS and eventually Windows 3.1 as well. Every bit as much as playing lots of computer games back then. I remember even making an icon for the simulation for Windows 3.1. Back when Windows was only a GUI and DOS was the actual OS. I had so much fun with it back then. Windows 95 spoiled it all the fun.

Their Finest Hour (video game) - Wikipedia

I loved playing with DOS until someone taught me how to work with Unix. That was really fun. I started coding around the time they made a change and a command line had no length limit. Not that anyone would want a really long one but knowing I did not have to worry about the limit was really nice. Powerful OS. This was 1995.

 

[grommet]

I'd be surprised if the ones making the decisions have ever touched a video game themselves. They dont care about the product, and they DEFINITELY dont care about the consumers.

That is what COD Black Ops 6 feels like. Like they knew what a game needed to have, maps, challenges, loot, intelligence gathering, ammo and maps and a story and they just forced everything into something that had all of that but no one cared at all about the game or the story. It feels like a box of cereal containing cereal.

COD Modern Warfare, wow, I see the incredible artistry. The NPCs are gorgeous. The detail, the emotions. Someone really cared. And the maps are great, beautiful but clever and fun and challenging. They were their own stories. Each on could stand on its own. All of it felt like the best people worked on every part. Black Ops 6 feels like people were made to come to work and wanted to go home.

The corporate suits are, and THEY dont care one bit.

This is terrible. Games mean to much to people and they pay a lot of money so the company and do both, care about a game and still make money. I do not see why they would not. Black Ops 6 is terrible. It feels like someone said, "Make a game." It is so bad.

Now that all being said, a game coming out badly doesnt automatically mean that the company behind it is being run by Satan or something. Sometimes someone with the absolute best intentions goes to make something, trying their best, and maybe they've made great things before... but the next thing just turns out wrong. It happens in any creative field, not just this one.

I do not understand how that could happen. Maybe it was an accident, a pattern of things no one could expect but if that happened the game would be uneven. Parts of the game to be great.

That being said, ideas on what constitutes a good game VS a bad game can vary WILDLY.

I think I understand that but there is a feeling to something. Like you can tell if the person making the food cared about it, even if it was not good. It seems like you can feel the person behind things. Some games I feel so grateful, I feel how hard people worked.

 

[Judge]

This is terrible. Games mean to much to people and they pay a lot of money so the company and do both, care about a game and still make money. I do not see why they would not. Black Ops 6 is terrible. It feels like someone said, "Make a game." It is so bad.

I do not understand how that could happen. Maybe it was an accident, a pattern of things no one could expect but if that happened the game would be uneven. Parts of the game to be great.

Back around the turn of the century I was employed as a lead web designer for an entertainment and educational software development and publishing company. I made and maintained all the product websites for their computer games and simulations. My first year in web design was spent inside the marketing department. Doors were seldom closed and cubicles were close to the managers' offices.

I suspect many of the gamers here would not be doing so if they had the experience I did, being on the inside. While the inside and outside developers were very committed to their projects, managers and marketers were strictly business. They were very blunt behind closed doors when it came to the importance of shareholders and what seemed almost like contempt for the gaming community. Where developing equity was far more important than retail sales.

Anticipated quarterly sales and new product releases were strictly for shareholder consumption. Not the people actually buying the product. Translation: New games not fully debugged would go out on schedule regardless of how playable the game may or may not be. Had to satisfy the shareholders, and well....hold off the gamers the best they could with a patch here and there. That's how it was. I loved making websites for the products, but how they treated their customers was ugly. I even recall telling my boss at the time who was the public relations manager that I bought a company product with a rebate. The person in question starting laughing, warning me not to expect the rebate to actually materialize. I proved them wrong by jumping through all the hoops they put up to get my rebate, but it was the attitude of the PR manager that really bothered me.

For legal purposes I've always made a point of not saying who I was talking about. But they are a brand name most people know. Bottom line was that with this company and probably the industry as a whole, that their focus is only on Wall Street. Never "main street". A perspective I also came to understand even more some years later with my last job as a personal investor. Where shareholders were treated like royalty while customers....well....not so much depending on who and what.

 

[grommet]

Anticipated quarterly sales and new product releases were strictly for shareholder consumption. Not the people actually buying the product. Translation: New games not fully debugged would go out on schedule regardless of how playable the game may or may not be. Had to satisfy the shareholders, and well....hold off the gamers the best they could with a patch here and there. That's how it was.

That helps me understand I think. Maybe they were forced to put out a game but a certain time. I wonder why the other COD games are so good then.

There was a wonderful PBS documentary about food. In one they talked about bakeries. They went to one in Washington state and the customers loved the place so much they came for generations. But it was the employees that made such an impression on me. Most had been there about thirty years. They would never make a lot of money. They would always be doing the same job. But they were treated so well they loved what they did. At work at 3am, doing the same work over and over. It was a happy place.

That made me think a business can make money and care about their customers and the people who work there, both could be done. I wish it would happen more often.

 

[Misery]

That is what COD Black Ops 6 feels like. Like they knew what a game needed to have, maps, challenges, loot, intelligence gathering, ammo and maps and a story and they just forced everything into something that had all of that but no one cared at all about the game or the story. It feels like a box of cereal containing cereal.

This is actually one of the reasons why I mostly dropped AAA games overall.

I usually describe it as "cookie cutter design". Basically, what happens is not so much a lack of creativity, but a lack of being ALLOWED to use that creativity.

Since big games like that cost an extreme amount to make, and since Corporate always MUST please their gods (shareholders), well, anything that is considered a "risk" to sales is typically avoided.

Creative things, stepping outside the normal boundaries, or stuff like that, just aint gonna fit the bill. Because that isnt safe for investors, so to speak. Like, FPS games are VERY popular in the AAA space. But they also all tend to play the same overall. Not a whole lot of identity to them... as you put it, a box of cereal containing cereal. As you continue with the hobby, you are likely going to see this more and more yourself. Like, obviously you can expect the CoD games to mostly be the same as each other... that makes sense, it's all from the same series, yeah? But you'll quickly find that games outside of that series still play just like it too. Because that is safe design.

This also means that when something new shows up somewhere that promises extreme popularity, Corporate will notice it, and Corporate will demand that it be included in every freaking game. Something I'm betting you havent encountered is the idea of a "crafting" system. These arent present much in shooters, but they're VERY common in other types of games. But they often just... arent very interesting. It is clear that they often arent put in there because they make sense for the game's design, but instead they are put in there because it's a popular mechanic that has worked well in OTHER games... therefore it must print money (so corporate thinks, anyway). It didnt used to be there, but then a little game called Minecraft appeared, and had such colossal success that it sent shockwaves throughout the entire industry. Suddenly, concepts used in that... particularly crafting... started appearing EVERYWHERE. This had such a huge impact that even a decade after Minecraft's appearance, this has not slowed down whatsoever (which is enhanced further by the fact that Minecraft itself also has not slowed down).

Now it's possible to do really interesting things with that concept... but Corporate doesnt like "interesting". They like "safe". So the idea of crafting is done in like the most absolutely basic way possible, making it often just... boring.

It feels like someone said, "Make a game." It is so bad.

That's pretty accurate, yes. The other big thing I find frustrating about the big-budget games is that there are so few different genres here. Gaming as a whole, there have been LOTS of genres. At different points, certain genres show up more often because they are popular (like how platformers were big back in the 90s), but still, lots and lots of different types of games.

But now? On the AAA side of the industry, there are very few. Most genres are just outright missing. Strategy games? Nope. Puzzle games? Nope. Lots of others, also nope.

Stick to the safe ones, make those... what's that, developers? You dont have any passion for those? FREAKING TOUGH. The shareholders demand a blood sacrifice. Blood, sweat and tears... to make this one safe thing over and over again.

They were very blunt behind closed doors when it came to the importance of shareholders and what seemed almost like contempt for the gaming community.

What's really sad to me is that lately this sort of thing aint just behind closed doors anymore. A lot of the big companies have been increasingly open with that contempt, very blunt about it and not hiding it at all. Like the whole "gamers should get used to not owning their games" incident not too long ago. Among others. It's gotten pretty darned spiteful.

Yet the gaming community still just eats it all up like good little consumers. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

They KNOW the big guys dont care about them, they know that these companies are taking advantage of them, they know the business practices are downright abusive and predatory. They know all these things and will complain about them endlessly. They'll review them negatively. They'll even declare that they're going to boycott them, which led to things like this infamous moment:

I think that rather sums up the relationship between the players and the big companies rather well. And it's only gotten so much worse from there.

I cant count the number of times I've heard the phrase "vote with your wallet" followed immediately by that person opening their wallet to vote the same way as last time.

I've always had trouble understanding that.

 

[AuAL]

I have family connections into the games industry. Some comments on this discussion: “Game developers know what they are putting out. They know if a game is not good, but are under other pressures, e.g. to get something out by deadline. A game may be good, but if management has made projections about future revenues that are not realised, they then just don’t have the money, and whole teams/studios can be out of work. Making (good) games is difficult. If you had ever worked in games you would realise it’s a miracle that games ever get made.”

 

[Judge]

I have family connections into the games industry. Some comments on this discussion: “Game developers know what they are putting out. They know if a game is not good, but are under other pressures, e.g. to get something out by deadline. A game may be good, but if management has made projections about future revenues that are not realised, they then just don’t have the money, and whole teams/studios can be out of work. Making (good) games is difficult. If you had ever worked in games you would realise it’s a miracle that games ever get made.”

It's the difference between a large gaming developer managing their own product, versus the much smaller ones dependent on software publishers who ultimately contractually gain a lion's share of control over the product. It's really quite sad at times, when you see developers who want to deliver the best product possible, while it may not meet deadlines imposed on them. I can still recall a few developers on the phone confiding to me their frustrations.

Such dynamics remind me of the dictatorial recording studios of the past. Practically holding artists hostage based on an inequitable recording contract.

 

[tkcartoonist]

The video game industry is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. It's pretty much guaranteed that some games will be made just to net the publisher a profit for the quarter.

And this isn't a new phenomenon: there were some very, very bad games made during the 8 and 16-bit days that were based on a preexisting property (just one example: there was a Rocky and Bullwinkle game made for the NES that was infamous for the music glitching out on the second level).

 

[Judge]

And this isn't a new phenomenon: there were some very, very bad games made during the 8 and 16-bit days that were based on a preexisting property (just one example: there was a Rocky and Bullwinkle game made for the NES that was infamous for the music glitching out on the second level).

True. My experience working for a developer/publisher was in the late 90s.

Business is business. Some more aggressive and reckless than others. When shareholders come first, and customers may just be an afterthought. Where publishers constantly and contractually maintain an upper hand with struggling developers.

The guys actually making this stuff I found to be very good people. The suits behind it all, not so much.

 

[grommet]

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was the best game I have ever played. I am playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and it is even better. It is amazing what they did. I do not know how far I am in the campaign so I do not know when I can try Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 which I have downloaded too but this same company is making amazing games. The artists who do this work - I hope people are able to thank them some how. I want them to know gamers do appreciate what they do and we do notice even the tiny details they work on.

Still hard to accept Call of Duty: Black Ops 6, comes from the same company.

 

[Misery]

I want them to know gamers do appreciate what they do

The sad thing is, it often works in pretty much the opposite way.

A lot of the time, when corporate meddling ruins something (usually through a rushed release), the developers end up taking the backlash from players. Which can escalate really badly, there's been incidents of death threats, for instance.

As much as I love this hobby, the gaming community as a whole is spectacularly toxic overall. I mean like *REALLY* bad. You've probably seen the behavior some players can have in multiplayer games, but it goes way further than just that.

I mean, I can talk about the hobby all day, but I wont go anywhere near the community at large for any reason.

The best way you can show appreciation yourself though is to leave a positive review on Steam. It doesnt have to sound professional or anything. Just a simple paragraph like what you just wrote is fine, as long as you're being honest it's all good.

I dont know if you're aware of this, but reviews on Steam affect the algorithm in terms of showing people new games that they might want to buy.

This doesnt really come into play with a AAA release (they're too big to need it) but still, it's a good way to show some positivity.

 

[grommet]

The sad thing is, it often works in pretty much the opposite way.

A lot of the time, when corporate meddling ruins something (usually through a rushed release), the developers end up taking the backlash from players. Which can escalate really badly, there's been incidents of death threats, for instance.

As much as I love this hobby, the gaming community as a whole is spectacularly toxic overall. I mean like *REALLY* bad. You've probably seen the behavior some players can have in multiplayer games, but it goes way further than just that.

Why are they so cruel? Why would they say personal things to strangers and threaten them?

 

[Misery]

Why are they so cruel? Why would they say personal things to strangers and threaten them?

A million theories and a million reasons.

Insecurities, fear, hate, anger, bigotry... pick your poison on that one. Many times, it's all of the above at once!

Combine that with the feelings of being bolstered by the anonymity that the internet provides, and that's quite a cocktail mixed up there.

It doesnt help that certain sections of the internet... particularly in places like Youtube or Reddit... actively foster that kind of behavior on purpose. For whatever reason, that infection spreads particularly easily among the gaming community. There are entire communities or channels or influencer circles or whatever that are A: supposedly all about gaming, but are B: in truth, actually about hate and rage farming.

It's been a pretty big problem lately. It'd take quite a while to really explain it fully, but it's something I've been following closely for a long while now.

The best thing you can do is just steer clear and simply enjoy the hobby yourself. No need to let any of it ruin your fun.

 

[grommet]

A million theories and a million reasons.

Insecurities, fear, hate, anger, bigotry... pick your poison on that one. Many times, it's all of the above at once!

Combine that with the feelings of being bolstered by the anonymity that the internet provides, and that's quite a cocktail mixed up there.

It doesnt help that certain sections of the internet... particularly in places like Youtube or Reddit... actively foster that kind of behavior on purpose. For whatever reason, that infection spreads particularly easily among the gaming community. There are entire communities or channels or influencer circles or whatever that are A: supposedly all about gaming, but are B: in truth, actually about hate and rage farming.

It's been a pretty big problem lately. It'd take quite a while to really explain it fully, but it's something I've been following closely for a long while now.

The best thing you can do is just steer clear and simply enjoy the hobby yourself. No need to let any of it ruin your fun.

I know you are trying to help me understand but I still do not. Ragefarming, that makes sense. Keep everyone talking and clicking.

Walking with my in-person autism group once after the meeting was over, one person said something awful about a celebrity. He called her a name. It was this amazing moment for me. On the internet I had heard people do that but I could not understand who they were, I could not picture them. But he did it in front of me and it just came out of me, I said "It's you. You are the guy on the internet. I cannot believe but it is you. You do not know her, how can you say that?"

He was not a confident person, he was very nervous in the meetings. So was I, all of us, but he seemed more uncomfortable. But when he said that about the celebrity while we were walking, he sounded very confident. I think there is something there. He felt superior when he said something bad about her but every other time he spoke was was not bold or strong or confident but he smiled when he cussed at her. That seemed the one moment he was strong.

I am not making fun of him. I just think it is so unfair. If you do not know a person you cannot know things about them. You can guess, you can think you see a pattern, that is fair. But you cannot know. But they speak like they know. I have heard some people here do that too. They do not say, it sounds like or they might be, they are declarative about people they never saw in person.

I understand the desperation to feel better about yourself and strong. When you first taught me about video games you said some guys like playing a game to feel like they are the person fighting, they are the character. I am paraphrasing, I cannot remember your exact words but you were saying some people like to play the games and imagine they are the hero and they feel good. I told you I did not feel that way. But I have been thinking a lot. I do it too. I thought I did not but I do.

I liked the Jason Bourne movies a lot. It was not until the last week I realized I was pretending I was him in the movies. He was so cool and he got the pretty girl and could fight. I wanted to be like that. I did not know I was doing that. I think I like the Army/soldier games I play now because of that reason, I want to pretend I am tough. It does make me feel better.

In school I could not do what normal boys did. I was afraid to fight, I did not like cussing, I was bad at sports. I was not cool and I was afraid of bullies. But in my video games I carry a rifle and think really cool thoughts. I actually fantasize that I am doing all these tough guy things. I did not know I was doing that.

So I am understanding why it could make someone feel good to be able to shout something. To feel strong for that moment but I do not understand the cruelty. There is no limit. I have seen it in Youtube comments. I cannot give an example so extreme there is nothing past it, there is. They make fun of people being .. I cannot say exactly because it is supposed to be family friendly here, but they make fun of people being hurt extremely badly in videos. They even call the people who got hurt or died, names. They call them stupid a lot. There is nothing worse. These are not tv shows, real people.

But someone is at their home eating food they like and on their computer and feeling an urge to say something and they do but it is not a comment, it is something incredibly cruel. They love to make fun of people and it seems to me behind all the comments is the point that they are superior to the people in the videos.

Once I had to testify in court against a man who I saw hurting his girlfriend. Let me tell everyone that court is not like tv, it is not what you expect. When I went in and saw the flags, the city flag and state and US flag. The judge's dais, raised above everything. Then I saw the witness chair where I was supposed to go. I was in awe, I was stunned. It is not easy to be cocky or smart then, it was intimidating. I am making the point that people watch videos or read things and say how easy that thing is and the person should have done better. You were not there, you do not know what it is like.

I wonder what those people who comment are really thinking. Do they feel at all that they might have hurt someone? Do they feel like the people are not real?

I do not understand the cruelty. I understand the urge. I get mad too. I get very unfair thoughts. But I always feel ashamed and I have learned that when I feel guilty about something it is because I know I am doing something wrong even if I do not know what at the time. Do those people ever feel guilty?

I wish it would stop but I am not dumb. There seems to be some permission so people can get away with it. I forget who but someone once said something about if you were sharing a prison cell with someone, would you say what you just said? They were explaining feeling safe because you are so far away from the person you are yelling at lets you do something you would not do if you were really at risk.

I have made this too long. I guess I have a lot to say about it.

 

[Misery]

I'm going to respond by sending you a direct message rather than post it here (and I'll explain why in the message).