• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red flags that a game is poo

img_2360-681x449.jpg


saw this in the infinite warfare beta, laughed, uninstalled it and went back to multiplayer shooters that didn't slap their playerbase in the face

so to answer the OP; gameplay items being locked behind RNG, especially when they're statistically better variants and even more so when the game already has paid DLC
 
Dusk Golem said:
There's a difference in personal taste and quality.

But I expect more dumb answers that are around this level.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think that's a dumb answer. I don't like games that are super light on gameplay and are basically just interactive movies where you walk around reading/listening to things. I usually see people praising those games as great experiences if they happen to like it while comments on gameplay is kept at a minimum. I mostly think those are bad games and it's a red flag that it's something I wouldn't enjoy. An example of a game I'm describing is Gone Home. I think those kinds of games are bad and not something I care for. I don't have anything against those that like them or anything. I just think they're poo.
 
Low-end graphics but still runs bad, poorly done tutorials, twenty second wait on start-up as it checks for DLC, main menu starts on DLC/shop button instead of continue or new game, being forced to do something completely stupid to advance the plot, cannot change control scheme or bindings at all.

There's a bunch more I could list off but these are the most obvious ones.
 
When a game gets delayed within 2 months of its scheduled release date. You know the only reason they'd do that is if the finished product is shit and needs to be completely redone, but they won't have time to fix it.


Fisty said:
"Our open-world map is x times bigger than [ridiculously big but very shallow game]'s map"
Click to expand...

Ye-up.
 
The ones that use mostly cutscenes and story to advertise the game. If your game is fun to play, you should show it being played.

Games where the marketing team is at all tempted to describe the core content of the game as "quests."
 
I think it would be a sense of lack of confidence. This takes many forms, and I've seen it plenty this year, but I can sort of feel when something isn't totally sure of itself and that usually pans out, like No Man's Sky. I have respect for that team and I truly think they meant well, but their ambitions clashed with natural release scheduling and whatnot.
 
If it has a tutorial on how to spend the measly amount of premium currency they just gave you.

Well, I guess having a "premium currency" at all is the shorter answer.
 
When the developer asks an online community to declare whether they are for or against a game, before it has come out.
 
Removal of Splitscreen Co-Op. Not only is lack of local multiplayer shitty in of itself, the conscious removal of it is an indicator of the developers overall priorities in game design. Case in point Halo 5 & TMNT: Mutants in Manhattan.
 
"Cinematic gameplay"

Apart from it being an oxymoron, this tag usually applies to games with overlong cutscenes, regular scripted sequences that mask the lack of player agency, or a whole lot of QTEs. I guess it's a subjective measure though. It's not a quality I look for in games.
 
Here's few list of mine:

-over promising what the game can do now
-Fake gameplay trailers
-Too many microtransactions for the game
 
I tried to warn people about some Red Flags I saw for a major new AAA IP but I got repeatedly chewed out by a very vocal subset of GAF for doing so.

  • when marketing has to stretch and reach for positive things to say about a game prior to release

  • when marketing relies heavily on a "its better/bigger than (insert other popular IP here)" or "its a (insert popular IP) killer" as a tagline

  • when the developer promises post launch support and talks more about that whilst avoiding talking about major systems in the initial release.

  • when the publisher refuses to provide early review copies

  • when the developer announces post release monetization plans months prior to the actual release of the game.

  • when fans of a given game's response to criticism of said game is to attack the one criticizing the game instead of responding to/ refuting said criticism as it means that there is no actual refutation and that the criticism is very valid.

When you have 3 or more of these its best to hold off on your purchase and wait for the fog to clear a bit first.
 
When a Dev says: "I love to wander around in the world" in a openworld game.

Also totally scripted scenes in openword games (Watch Doge 1)

trafficlight-600x387.png
 
When a supposedly advanced cyborg standing right in front of you can't seem to hear any of the noise you make and a guy in a helicopter thinks that the best tactic, when dealing with a guy who is really only armed with a sword, is to fly at ground level.
 
Id say a good sign is when they intentionally have the wrong spelling of words in the title to seem edgy. Its not always true but it is a pretty good indicator.
 
No review copies sent out before release.

BEFORE you tell me that "DOOM is the exception!" I know. I've heard it before. There are rare cases where games with no review copies come out that aren't complete trash, but most of the times that's the case lately.
 
I usually go full concern when footage is withheld for a big budget game. Especially if numerous demos/previews over the course of a year or so shows the same area.
 
Wired All Wrong said:
Not sure why you think that's a dumb answer. I don't like games that are super light on gameplay and are basically just interactive movies where you walk around reading/listening to things. I usually see people praising those games as great experiences if they happen to like it while comments on gameplay is kept at a minimum. I mostly think those are bad games and it's a red flag that it's something I wouldn't enjoy. An example of a game I'm describing is Gone Home. I think those kinds of games are bad and not something I care for. I don't have anything against those that like them or anything. I just think they're poo.
Click to expand...

It's because partially the topic signalling. Like, I'm not big on sports game at all really, but if there's a sign that a game is a sports game, it doesn't signal to me it's going to be 'poo', it just signals it's not for my personal taste, which I think is a crucial difference. The difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Laura Fryer - Deleted Dev Post Reveals Huge Highguard Red Flags
2
80
988
jason10mm replied
IGN Review: Code Red "is a bad game"
2
76
969
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
It appears that Troy Baker is building a game studio
Business Trailer Game Dev 
45
346
Dr. Samuel Hayden replied
Tom Henderson: Next big Ubisoft game after Black Flag is Ghost Recon
24
283
GudOlRub replied
CD Projekt RED announces that Cyberpunk 2 is in pre-production and Project Hadar is in the conceptual phase, The Witcher 4 Now Has 499 Developers
Opinion Business Game Dev 
7
245
Sgt.Asher replied
Top Bottom