The 6 Stupidest Gamer Complaints

Video games are, in this day and age, nothing short of an art form. Like any other medium, they (should) strive to convey meaningful stories with compelling characters based in a living, breathing world with the added bonus of engaging, addictive, and evolving gameplay. Now, there are numerous titles (lookin' at you, sports games) that may not call for narrative storytelling, and that's okay. Like all art, the audience needs to understand the intent and purpose of each piece before making judgments. And, like all art, much of the audience completely fails at doing so.

Games have a growing number of critics, especially among their fans, and as games get more and more refined, so do the people who play them. Unfortunately, there are those among us who seem to have unequivocally missed the point altogether, bringing to the table such retarded complaints as...


6. It's The Same Game as Last Year

Most often, you'll hear this in reference to sports games. The Madden NFL franchise in particular gets a lot of flak for supposedly just repackaging last year's game with high-def grass and selling it for $60 as a "new title".

But damn, that is some nice grass.

And honestly, why wouldn't they? EA Games owns exclusive rights to NFL gaming trademarks, so no other company can make an official NFL game unless they want the largest third-party company in the world breathing down and subsequently biting off their necks. With the absolute non-existence of competition, what incentives do the game-makers have to put any sort of effort into the title? Especially when they have impressive, if not record sales every year.

Well, the fact of the matter is, there's only so much these companies can do. Think about it. Do you ever hear fans of the actual NFL or MLB complain that the games are "just like last year"? No. But it's a lot of the same players, all the same teams, the same jerseys, the same stadiums, the same rules, the same referees, the same soap opera BS. And that's exactly the problem sports game developers keep running into year after year. The real-life games they base their virtual ones off of don't change. There aren't any overarching narratives throughout each season. Teams aren't building new stadiums every year. And the rules are pretty much set in stone. So what else is there to tweak except graphics and gameplay? Even then, players want to get comfortable with a specific set of controls for each series they play. If you're changing the buttons on them with every iteration, they're gonna get pissed over that instead. So really, the only thing these companies can update each year, are the graphics, the UI, and maybe an extra mode or two.

Meh. Needs more team deathmatch.

5. The Graphics Suck

The only reason this isn't higher on the list is because it's a pretty hotly contested issue. A good portion of the gaming community understands that it takes more than some fancy texture mapping and volumetric sampling to make a satisfying experience, just as it takes more than a few lens flares and a handful of epic explosions to make a good movie. But there are still way too many gamers out there who feel that, unless they're playing the best of the best, they might as well not be playing at all.

"Wow, that's cute. What kind of napkin and crayons did you use?"

Like all technology, graphics engines are obsolete almost as soon as they hit the market. Graphics are a lot like beer - there's nothing really substantive in there, and all it does is just make you thirsty for more. Also, your obsession over it makes you kind of a dick. And many of the people complaining seem to be newer-generation gamers, since most of the old schoolers who have stuck it out can better appreciate the evolution of the medium, as well as the maturation of storytelling throughout gaming history. Because, believe it or not, the backstory for Pac-Man was little more than a picture of him getting raped by some ghosts.

With a majority of game companies being pressured towards photo-realism, and with each new console and gaming PC pushing the limits of the hardware, sometimes the emphasis becomes unbalanced, and developers put a little too much time into making the game look good, forgetting to make it fun. A great example is a title that came out a few years ago: Far Cry 2. My sister and I were just laughing at this game the other day, because the story and the voice acting are positively atrocious. The missions are mind-numbingly repetitive, and what minimal storyline exists was probably farted out in some executive bathroom during a lunch break. And leading up to the game's release, the developers had little to say about these aspects, choosing instead to tout the game's realistic day/night and weather cycles, the state-of-the-art animations, the realistic particle rendering, the fire propagation system, and the robust physics engine. While these certainly add some flavor to the experience, the lack of just about everything else really chews away a lot of the potential fun.

That's not to say that graphics are bad and all future games should simply be text-based. Just as beautiful cinematography can enhance a film's emotional and thematic impact, great visuals can really help immerse gamers into the characters and situations, making the experience that much more profound. But, like human beauty, it should never be a substitute for personality.


4. There's No More Imagination

If you troll enough gaming sites, or accidentally bring the topic up with "that friend", you've heard the argument that, like music and movies and everything else these days, every modern video game looks exactly the same.

Individuality!

And, if you look at some of the examples, you may start to think they've got a point. I mean, unless you've played the games, you might not be able to pick out which of the following is Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, or Medal of Honor: Warfighter.

Well, jeepers creepers, right? It's like every developer took one look at a color palette from a bunch of old Westerns and said, "Yeah, that's good enough." And that's true of pretty much every game nowadays, right? Everything is just bleak...

and monochromatic...

and completely devoid of inspiration whatsoever...

Whoa! How'd that get in there? Sorry about that, folks. That right there is actually an ad for a series called Little Big Planet. The two games they've released so far have been heralded as nothing short of creative genius. The levels boast beautiful colors, inspirational designs, quirky characters, adorable custom "Sackthings" (the playful critters pictured above), and inventive physics-based puzzles. All from a franchise that showed up in 2008.

Other prime examples are Psychonauts (2005), Prince of Persia (2008), Uncharted (2007), Heavy Rain (2010), Ratchet & Clank (2002), Bully (2006), Braid (2008), and most recently, 2012's indie classic Journey. All of these titles feature interesting characters in lush, beautiful environments; strong story elements; and unique, creative gameplay. And all from within the past decade. And there are countless other examples from over the years.

That's not to deny that a suspicious number of games these days - especially among the first-person shooter crowd - have similar designs. And, as your skeptical mind may have already guessed, that's not really a coincidence. See, with the massive success of titles like Modern Warfare and Battlefield, developers big and small want to cash in and ride those coattails, because, let's be honest, it's easier. And this isn't the Gold Rush era anymore. High-risk investments don't hold much appeal for companies in any field, let alone gaming. So, the safer bet is usually the one that's taken, even if that means milking someone else's success. But that's a trick that's been around since the beginning. Of time, not video games. Though the classics are no exception.

3. DLC is a Ripoff

DLC or Downloadable Content is perhaps one of the touchiest subjects among modern gamers, and frankly, both sides make some convincing key points. Although the concept's been around for a while, the global connectivity of gaming platforms within recent years really saw DLC come to a fruition. And gamers tend to be very split on the subject. A number of them think it's a promising extension of the medium, providing the potential for a lot of innovative creation. Others are dead-set on the absolute audacity of gaming companies to even hint at such an idea.

For those who may not know, DLC essentially works like any other online purchase. You make an account, you give them your credit card info, and you buy digital material. This DLC can range anywhere from new costumes or weapons, to expansion packs with new characters and missions, to full-on games. Often, this stuff is relatively inexpensive and it's usually a fair deal. But nay-sayers look at stuff like all this douchebaggery and hang up their controllers with a silent shake of their head.

Or a silent stab of their roommate.

How can there be justice in a world where horse accessories and the endings to games are now being sold separately? And I won't argue - as with any system, the DLC marketplace has been exploited for some pretty lame and absurd things, but in (almost) all those cases, you didn't need to buy the content to get the full enjoyment of the game. It was just extra stuff - frills, if you will - for those who might be interested. And it's that choice factor that really tends to ruin most of the complaints about DLC. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Yes, I totally take issue with parts of a game being sold as "additional content", but extra maps or a few new missions that don't pertain to the story aren't a bad thing, and if game developers can make a few extra dollars here and there with some of that stuff, well... they kinda need it.

Perhaps the biggest counter-argument comes from all the free DLC available. Ranging from free Rock Band songs and tons of free add-on packs for a variety of different games, to full free indie titles just waiting to be enjoyed, the fact of the matter is, a lot of the stuff on Xbox LIVE Marketplace and the PSN Store is smart content at a great price. Don't let the few bad apples ruin the tree, or the pie, or whatever. And speaking of pricing....

2. Games Are Too Expensive!

It's true, modern gaming is not a cheap hobby. The average PC game will run you between $40 and $50, while the average console title is up around $60. Not to mention the hundreds you'll spend on the consoles themselves, or thousands if you want a high-end gaming PC. Clearly, this is all just a scam by the game companies, because they know we need to feed our addiction, and they'll just keep ramping up that number until one of us dies from shock. Right?

Well, unfortunately, that's just not the case. While some game prices may have risen slightly by comparison since their colloquial birth in the '70s, the truth of the matter is, they've just about kept pace with inflation over the decades. And, in some regards, prices have come down in recent years. By today's standards, a number of the early '80s and '90s games would have cost close to $100.

Would you pay $70 for this game today? (Hint: no)

And the kicker is, game development costs have only skyrocketed since the beginning. While early titles could range from production budgets of a few thousand to a few million, modern games can rival those of current Hollywood blockbusters, tipping the scales between $50-$100 million. Not to mention the competition overload of free browser-based and downloadable games that have saturated the market in this internet heyday. All said and done, the vast improvement to graphics, physics, character development, gameplay, sound, story, and explode-y things has far surpassed the inflationary price of modern video games. So even though it may seem like a few extra bucks out of pocket, the reality is you're getting a lot more for your money than ever before.


1. It's Way Too Short

With the advent and subsequent explosion in popularity of online gaming, multiplayer has made a significant transition from "several players crammed on a single, smelly couch, each with an indecipherable tiny box on the same tiny display" to "players from around the world interacting and connecting and still actually able to see what their character is doing on screen". Since then, paradigms have shifted, with heavier and heavier focus being placed on a title's online multiplayer functionality. With fully-customizable characters, weapon and armor upgrades, achievements, ranks, map unlocks, modding tools, unique co-op quests, a variety of gameplay modes, and a whole host of other attractive features, so much time gets put into crafting the perfect multiplayer experience, that sometimes the anti-social kids or the kids who don't want to get called "fag" by 50 different 14-year-olds feel a little left out.

"This poor n00b is clearly gay and needs my verbally abusive assistance to come to terms."

If the single-player campaign of a linear game (like Call of Duty) can't muster more than 5 or 6 hours, it's now considered "too short" by most gamers. Despite having endless replayability online, so many games nowadays are getting cut down for their "stunted" single-player. Non-linear open-world games (like Grand Theft Auto or Fallout) are expected to last anywhere from 30 to 100+ hours. And the implications on both sides are a little ludicrous.

I'll be the first to agree that (usually) the longer you can make your game run, the better. But not at the expense of the story. Otherwise you end up making Far Cry 2, which is 20% killing people, 5% stealing diamonds, and 75% driving or walking around in the desert and jungle. Sure, the game takes a while to actually finish, but only because half of it's fluff, specifically meant to extend the playing time. Same thing with GTA IV. The only reason it took me 60 hours to finish the game was because I spent more time bowling or getting drunk or running down homeless people or all three of those at once than I did completing the actual missions. Don't get me wrong, I love that game, but I don't remember jack about the actual story, because it was so interspersed between hours of exploring the city, exploding the city, stealing fire trucks, and just goofing off.

"Take me to your homeless people. I have business with them."

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the games that really want to tell you a fantastic story. Sometimes, it's split across multiple titles (Modern Warfare), and sometimes, each game is its own unique, encapsulated tale (Uncharted). In both cases, I've heard a lot of complaints about the length of the campaigns; and, in my opinion, both franchises tell compelling, engaging, and sometimes downright nerve-wracking stories. If you were to ask us to sit down and watch a 4-hour film, as good as it may be, many of us might pass; but put that same story in our hands, and give it save points so we can take it in bite-sized pieces, and suddenly 4 hours isn't nearly enough. And part of the problem stems from that same bittersweet feeling that you get when you finish a really good book. You feel like you've made a solid investment, and that you've been satisfied on the return, but you like that feeling, and you don't really want it to end. So we get upset that there isn't more for us to enjoy, and that's actually a very natural reaction: it's called greed.

"Oh, screw you."

But the other problem is simply that the expectations are skewed. As a writer, I can tell you right off the bat that scripting a coherent, consistently engaging story is difficult, even for a 2-hour affair, so to expect that every writer at every company could produce a 10-hour interactive masterpiece just isn't reasonable by any standards. The development team not only has to write all the dialogue and action and set pieces, but they have to incorporate how the players will move through and engage the environment; not to mention, with series like Mass Effect, they often have to invent multiple storylines that ebb and flow with the player's decisions.

If you want a suitable comparison, take a look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The extended editions will run you about 12 hours total, and those movies were eight years in the making. So if you want that kind of quality and length in your video games, you may have to strap in for a hibernation cycle or two. If you're at a loss, ask your Duke Nukem Forever friends to help with preparations. They'll know what to do.