I like crafting if it is well thought out. I dont those game where you should finish the game for the devs, making models from legos and the game itself is just a huge empty shell what you have to fill.

Quest for Glory 5 is awesome and a labor of love just like the previous games. Dunno if this is controversial among the fans but gaming mags didn't seem to like it much.

I don't like to see anything sex-related in mainstream games. If a game has strong sexual themes, I'll pass on it. Including The Witcher and, presumably, Cyberpunk. If I want something sexy, I'll pick up a game dedicated to that and I'll be in the right frame of mind for it. The reserved thrills in a mainstream game are a distraction from the gameplay and often are just cynical pandering.

Every single PC gamer now is stupid. Never in the history of gaming have gamers been so terribad and don't know anything about anything.


Nudity and sex is good. Period.
Consoles suck. Period.
Game news media and corporations suck. Period.

Now watch as no one has any clue about this and are lost from real PC gamer culture doesn't comment but instead bumps "no not me, you! One three two!" Threads like zombies.

No AAA game from 2004 and up has ever delivered as originally advertised on release day.

Storytelling adds no value to a game and should be kept as rudimentary as possible.

Strongly agree, particularly when it comes to RPGs.

(The only exception I'll make is for visual/kinetic novels, where taking away the story would mean taking away the entire game.)

Also, trial-and-error gameplay can be fun.

I have no opinion on Cyberpunk 2077 because the game isn't out yet.

Not about games per se, but still related:

I don't like GiantBomb: sloppy coverage with little to no research of the games done beforehand, sometimes to the extent that I feel they misrepresent the games, "samey" opinions between all members.They often strike me as surprisingly ignorant or close-minded as in "ugh this East European game can't possibly be good". There's a certain arrogance with them as well. In recent years they've also started employing people who don't seem to have any knowledge of gaming, who are then given the task of reviewing games.

About games: stamina and weapon/armor degradation are annoying features. If it's a soccer game, "sure", stamina is a reasonable feature to have, ... but in a Fantasy or Sci-fi game? It's just annoying for the sake of being annoying.

Mechanics like that can be good, provided that they're treated as a resource and abilities and actions are balanced with that cost in mind.

For example, SaGa 1/2 and most Fire Emblem games handle the durability mechanic in a reasonable manner; stronger weapons/spells have lower durability in Fire Emblem, and in all these games you can actually see how many uses there's left. (It also helps that there's no way to escape these systems, so you can't just stick to using free attacks; SaGa Frontier 2 fails here, and that's also one of the issues with the Elder Scrolls handling of the issue, which I'll mention later.) I can also point out that durability in these games is only applied to active abilities such as weapons and spells; passives like armor don't have durability and never break.

On the other hand, I'll mention the Elder Scrolls series as one that handle the durability issue in a poor way. Stronger weapons are more durable that weaker weapons, so the strategic effect of having to use stronger weapons only sparingly is diluted, and when the ability to repair is factored in, irrelevant. There's also the escape in the form of spells, and in the first two games, unarmed combat, which allows you to avoid the durability issue entirely. You can just get through these games ignoring the mechanic with the right setup; high STR and unarmed in Arena (but if playing the floppy version, don't hit a door with gauntlets equipped or the game will crash), unarmed skill in Daggerfall and Battlespire, magic items (which automatically recharge) and bound weapons in Morrowind, and spells and bound weapons in Oblivion.

Also, stamina can work well if it's treated as a resource for physical attacks, just like MP is used for spells; stronger physical attacks use more stamina (and can't be used if you don't have enough) just like stronger spells use more MP.

A lot of the games from the Kickstarter era are not looking so great these days. Forager, Graveyard Keeper, and other such titles with ADD developers who can't go back and focus on older features to keep them balanced and in parity of the new features they add.

I hate it when a game doesn't tell you everything an option does. This includes some popular ones like FTL. You don't have to spoil it too much, just have a tooltip that says what effect the option will have on your resources. Because otherwise, you're telling the player to either go check a guide or choose blindly unless they've played before, taken that option and remember what it did. It's a kind of trial & error, which is just not good design.

I have only purchased 2 consoles, the ps2 and ps4, apart from a NES clone that was gifted to me as a child. While I don't hate consoles, they are essentially gaming machines for plebs.

However, I don't hate them because various consoles have made certain technological advancements the de facto standard.

For instance: The ps1 or the dreamcast made CDs the de facto standard (don't remember which).

ps2: DVDs

Ps5: NVME SSDs

XBOX: Affordable game streaming

So, it's not all bad. Consoles also enable many developers to earn their livelihood due to a more streamlined and relatively secure gaming platform. Like it or not, they essentially drive AAA gaming.

What I hate about 'em? Games being overpriced on consoles, at least in my country.

Games being dumbed down.

The absurdly bloated installation space needed.

DLCs instead of proper expansion packs, like in the days gone by.

This also applies to things like graphical settings. Whenever a game offers such settings, the game should state which setting is best for performance, and which setting gives the fanciest graphics. Also, the game should mention which settings have the biggest effect on performance, so the player knows what to do if the game isn't playing smoothly on their machine, or just wants to reduce power consumption (and hence increase battery life).

It was the PS1, and it is also when consoles lost the one major technical advantage they had over PCs, namely the lack of load times.

(Back in the early days, console games on cartridge loaded much faster than computer games on floppy disks; when you get to the PS1 era, computer games on the hard drive loaded much faster than console games on CD-ROM.)