Video Games Improvement

[Californian Mod Haters]

What video game needs improvement and how would you improve it?

[Yootopia]

What video game needs improvement and how would you improve it?

Erm almost all of them, there are about zero perfect games, and I would improve them by making any given example more enjoyable and satisfying.

[Conserative Morality]

WiC needed a revamp in AI, and more differences between US, NATO, and Soviet Units.

[Maurepas]

DoWII needed the other races playable in single player...I may have bought it then...

Im still angry at them for leaving the Orks without a campaign,

[North Avayu]

WiC needed a revamp in AI, and more differences between US, NATO, and Soviet Units.

Most importantly it needed more intelligent players. As long as I played, we never got rid of those arty-noobs and space-needle-whores.
I have to disagree on the differences though. That every side was basically the same made it unimportant on which side you were. It just came down to the people you were playing with. It was a game, not unlike to chess. Simple, but full of depth. You're right on the AI part, although it didn't really matter as it was a true multi player game.

[Conserative Morality]

Most importantly it needed more intelligent players. As long as I played, we never got rid of those arty-noobs and space-needle-whores.

Infantry FTW!

I have to disagree on the differences though. That every side was basically the same made it unimportant on which side you were. It just came down to the people you were playing with. It was a game, not unlike to chess. Simple, but full of depth. You're right on the AI part, although it didn't really matter as it was a true multi player game.

No differences in the sides made it boring figuring out which side you'd fare better with personally. I would have enjoyed long range for US Infantry, more power for the Soviet Infantry, and a nice balance in NATO. Stronger but more point-expensive tanks would have been nice for the USA. Stronger Spetznaz would have been nice, too.

And I loved the single-player more than the multi.

"The vultures have been fed, and the world has seen our might. Now... clear those skies."

[JuNii]

The Operative: No One Lives Forever. PS2 version.
Giving that damn Coin for the game!

SpyHunter: PS2 game.
an endless track with random villians popping up and weapon vehicles where you can trade out weapons. but keeping with the FPS feel.

the only things I can think up from the top of my head.

[Soratsin]

Starcraft 2 still needs a lot of work, especially the zerg. Queens are too easy to take out and the economic hit from losing them is much too high, roaches seem really imbalanced. Toss have a few units that are too weak, Colossi in particular, and blink should come standard with stalkers.

I'm still pissed that they scrapped goliaths, they were awesome support for siege tanks in Starcraft 1.

[North Avayu]

Most importantly it needed more intelligent players. As long as I played, we never got rid of those arty-noobs and space-needle-whores.

Infantry FTW!

I have to disagree on the differences though. That every side was basically the same made it unimportant on which side you were. It just came down to the people you were playing with. It was a game, not unlike to chess. Simple, but full of depth. You're right on the AI part, although it didn't really matter as it was a true multi player game.

No differences in the sides made it boring figuring out which side you'd fare better with personally. I would have enjoyed long range for US Infantry, more power for the Soviet Infantry, and a nice balance in NATO. Stronger but more point-expensive tanks would have been nice for the USA. Stronger Spetznaz would have been nice, too.

And I loved the single-player more than the multi.

"The vultures have been fed, and the world has seen our might. Now... clear those skies."

I always was an Infantry player, too! Most fun to bug the enemy all around the map!

While I loved the single-player campaign in all it cinematic epicness, I always was of the opinion that the MP was the stronger part of the game. I think it was what this game was designed for. That you didn't had to figure out which side was better for you was making it easier to jump right into the game. it was really like chess. It doesn't matter if you play black or white, you just have to know your units. In WiC additionally, you had to know your team and the map. You could play a match on one side and then change sides and play again. That made it perfect for tournaments. It didn't came down to the units that much, but to teamwork, communication and strategy. Oh, I become enthusiastic again.

Yeah, differences would have had some nice points too, but it was good as it was.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, differences would have had some nice points too, but it was good as it was.

Was it good as it was? Yes. But could differences, even small ones (And I don't mean "Two sides has WP and one side has something else!") would have improved the game immensely.

[North Avayu]

Yeah, differences would have had some nice points too, but it was good as it was.

Was it good as it was? Yes. But could differences, even small ones (And I don't mean "Two sides has WP and one side has something else!") would have improved the game immensely.

I don't think so. I liked it because it was different to Starcraft and all the like. There were no differences, so it didn't matter on which side you played. You didn't have to specialise for a side additionally to the specialisation for the the role. They wouldn't have improved the game immensely if there were just small differences, because you wouldn't have noticed those. In fact there were some. Not just the ones you mentioned, or inherently stupid ones like the slowness of the Nato Air-to-Air strike, but also could everyone who ever used the mod kit tell you that there were little differences between the three heavy tanks. Having bigger differences would have either broken the fragile balance or have the gameplay changed completely.

[Iuxtim]

I'm still pissed that they scrapped goliaths, they were awesome support for siege tanks in Starcraft 1.

Their in SCII, but campaign only, sadly.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't think so. I liked it because it was different to Starcraft and all the like. There were no differences, so it didn't matter on which side you played.

And Starcraft was different from the games that preceded it by having differences in units. Unit differences are an IMPROVEMENT, not merely a change.

You didn't have to specialise for a side additionally to the specialisation for the the role. They wouldn't have improved the game immensely if there were just small differences, because you wouldn't have noticed those. In fact there were some. Not just the ones you mentioned, or inherently stupid ones like the slowness of the Nato Air-to-Air strike, but also could everyone who ever used the mod kit tell you that there were little differences between the three heavy tanks. Having bigger differences would have either broken the fragile balance or have the gameplay changed completely

You balance the differences by... Wait for it... Making each unit different yet equal, catering to a specific play style.

[Soratsin]

I'm still pissed that they scrapped goliaths, they were awesome support for siege tanks in Starcraft 1.

Their in SCII, but campaign only, sadly.

Yeah I heard that, along with Firebats I believe.

Maybe the viking will make up for it, though they're probably way more expensive, but so are siege tanks....

[Nodinia]

What video game needs improvement and how would you improve it?

Empire -Total War. Give the AI some more I (its improved over medieval tw II but thats damnation by faint fucking praise), bring back way points, take out the miscellaneous bugs that cause regular crashes and shoot them behind the ear.
I really should have waited 18 months to 2 years after its release before buying it, but no, I had to be the big man with the credit card and buy it in the first month.....

[Helgrin]

DoWII needed the other races playable in single player...I may have bought it then...

Im still angry at them for leaving the Orks without a campaign,

Fear not. Expansions are coming.

[Gauntleted Fist]

What video game needs improvement and how would you improve it?

Ninja Gaiden II:

Give me a fucking useful machine gun (and enough ammo), goddammit. Machine gun > throwing stars.

[Sebytania]

What most games these days seem to lack is freedom and replayability. Operation Flashpoint or Fallout series, anyone? I won't even go to Nethack here.

These days, it seems that the focus is more on graphics and eye-candy (which, of course, is not a bad thing itself, but not nearly as important as playability either) and end up tunnel-runners. The Call of Duty series is an excellent example: Upon the second or third replay, the player knows exactly where and when a grenade will be thrown and by whom.

Of course, multiplayer doesn't have most of these problems, but it has others, like moronic players.

[Albaron]

What most games these days seem to lack is freedom and replayability. Operation Flashpoint or Fallout series, anyone? I won't even go to Nethack here.

These days, it seems that the focus is more on graphics and eye-candy (which, of course, is not a bad thing itself, but not nearly as important as playability either) and end up tunnel-runners. The Call of Duty series is an excellent example: Upon the second or third replay, the player knows exactly where and when a grenade will be thrown and by whom.

Of course, multi-player doesn't have most of these problems, but it has others, like moronic players.

I've found that Call of Duty 4 has good repeatability. I've played the campaign three times, and thought it was pulse-pounding action every time.

[Kantria]

What most games these days seem to lack is freedom and replayability. Operation Flashpoint or Fallout series, anyone? I won't even go to Nethack here.

These days, it seems that the focus is more on graphics and eye-candy (which, of course, is not a bad thing itself, but not nearly as important as playability either) and end up tunnel-runners. The Call of Duty series is an excellent example: Upon the second or third replay, the player knows exactly where and when a grenade will be thrown and by whom.

Of course, multiplayer doesn't have most of these problems, but it has others, like moronic players.

See, I don't really go for games that advertise "freedom and replayability" as their most appealing features. Sure, it's different every time you play through, but you never, ever get really strikingly cool or exciting sequences that you find in more linear games. Sure, they lose their impact on the second or third play-throughs, but you still remember how you felt when you first saw them. When you're playing more of a 'sandbox' game, it's as if you're already on your third replay of, say, Call of Duty 4: nothing makes a big impact on you. There's only so much a randomly-generated event can do to excite the player. How interesting it is, at that point, depends on how many choices you have and how good the AI is.

I played lots of Oblivion—probably 100% of it—but I did everything with one character, and never felt the desire to replay it. The quests were all standard stuff; the plot—including all the little sub-plots—were uninteresting; and the characters all lacked depth. The choices you were given were, more or less, about how to develop your character, but you could learn every skill in the game if you wanted to.

When it comes to content, I prefer "deep" over "broad"—and, unfortunately, developers almost always have to make a choice.

Of course, I prefer the opposite for strategy games. A linear campaign is nice, but I prefer AI skirmishes or random maps, or a more 'open' campaign like those of the Total War series.

[South Lorenya]

Change Halo 2 into a dating sim.

Seriously, though, they need to retcon Ultima 8 and Ultima 9 out of existence so they can create a new ultima 8 and ultima 9 that has nothing to do with EA.

[GetBert]

Removing all references to the Knights Templar would improve many a game.

[Call to power]

Civ IV they just remake Civ III and give it a new box plz

Removing all references to the Knights Templar would improve many a game.

what about broken sword?

[North Avayu]

You didn't have to specialise for a side additionally to the specialisation for the the role. They wouldn't have improved the game immensely if there were just small differences, because you wouldn't have noticed those. In fact there were some. Not just the ones you mentioned, or inherently stupid ones like the slowness of the Nato Air-to-Air strike, but also could everyone who ever used the mod kit tell you that there were little differences between the three heavy tanks. Having bigger differences would have either broken the fragile balance or have the gameplay changed completely

You balance the differences by... Wait for it... Making each unit different yet equal, catering to a specific play style.

There is something catering to specific play styles. It's called roles.
Of course it is possible to balance differences in units. I think there were even some mods trying to do that (not that any of them ever really left the cradle). But they all played completely different. What you want is to change the game radically. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think the game was perfect as it was. You would have had an other games, and if it was an improvement would have been in the eye of the beholder.

[Imperialist Reich]

Love to see Turning point fall of liberty upgraded to a much more MASSIVE standard.
Like to Medieval 2 re-done as well.
World in Conflict - needs a much longer campaign. Maybe towards the end of ww3.