Please be advised that this entry is over 6 months old. Its contents may no longer be accurate or relevant. Any personal views expressed within may not be currently held.

Oh video games, I love you so much.   But sometimes you don't seem to love me back.   I try to love your flaws, but I simply can't.   It's not your fault.   It's how you were raised.   Maybe in another life, we could have been great together.   But for now, I have to hope you'll change.   I have to change you.   It's the only way.

Ahem.   Anyway, here are 8 things the video game industry needs to stop doing.   Now.Moving, Yet Fixed, CamerasThe survival horror genre is most famous for this, especially the Silent Hill series where the camera angle hiding objects (monsters) is regarded as important.   It's also maddening and makes controlling the character a chore.

The idea is that the camera swivels around to a position in which the developers want you to see the game, but the camera gets fixed to that position and can't be moved by the user.   As mentioned before, this just creates problems controlling a character.   Especially in Silent Hill, where running from a monster is the best solution in most situations...   But oh no!   The camera constantly changes its position and now you're boned because you're clumsily trying to compensate for this.

I actually thought we were done with that in modern games.   Silent Hill Homecoming puts the camera behind the character and lets you control it (not sure about Shattered Memories), but then I tried the PS3 demo for Dante's Inferno and am absolutely sure no developer could fuck the game up worse than it already is.   They're back to this swivelling, static camera angle shit and it just shows that the game was rushed and the developers lazy.   Way to go, EA.Once-Only Achievements/TrophiesHere's lookin' at you, EA.

It's unacceptable for any achievement, trophy, or other such award to be obtainable only once at any point in time.   I don't just mean once in a game playthrough--that's expected and just about every game includes such an achievement in one way or another.   No, I mean when you have to play only on a certain date.   EA is notorious for requiring this; usually in the NFS series (Shift actually doesn't, and the achievements are all rather simple--it's like they just phoned it in) and you have to continually check their Website to find out when these scheduled race days are.   Oh, nice marketing EA, but no.   Go to hell.

Missed the date?   Oops, too bad.   In the case of EA, I've never heard of them ever scheduling another race day to get the achievements.   In fact, I'm pretty sure the first race day for Carbon was on December 20th of the year it was released.   For shame.Punishing Death When Scripted Death Is InevitableDeath in games has become rather normal and is a common plot-driving technique.   Sometimes death is permanent such as in games dealing with the paranormal and sometimes it's merely a wounding or loss of consciousness that changes the player's perspective or initiates an animated scene to drive the story forward.

No matter what its purpose, I think everyone is in agreement that dying during gameplay, having to reload the level/checkpoint and eventually discovering that the character was scripted to die mere moments after the unintended death is irritating as all hell.   Here's my proposal:   if the player is within 50 meters of whoever, whatever, or wherever is going to kill the character when they die accidentally, let's just roll the animation and call it a day, m'kay?   Thanks.Pre-Order ExclusivesI'm sure I'm not the only one who's sick of all these pre-order in-game exclusives.   I don't mind when they come with figurines, books, or anything of that sort, but it's the in-game content that kind of rubs me the wrong way.   Especially when that content likely won't be released anytime in the foreseeable future or when its exclusion makes the game feel less complete.

The increase in games that offer up pre-order content anymore is really what made me hit the boiling point.   Sure, publishers and retailers both love it as it gives them a great idea of how many copies they're going to sell and the retailers get the money in advance.   It's just a shame that a gamer has to pre-order a game if they want all the content and may never get the opportunity to get it again.   This is especially true for games released around Christmas time when parents may not know about pre-ordering or how to do it.

All I know is that the L4D2 DLC coming this Spring better include the baseball bat, and it better not be the announced new melee weapon.   Come on Valve, if you want to pretend to be that people's champ underdog developer, start playing ball.¹

Edit (1/9/2010):   The upcoming PS3 exclusive Heavy Rain has done it correctly.   Pre-ordering gives you early, free access to the first episode of down-the-road episodic content that others can buy for $5 when available.   That's really how it should be done."Your Actions Affect The Outcome"No they don't.   Let's just stop that lie right now.   The outcome is not truly dynamic or anything close to it.   Most of these choices are huge, made half-way through the game, and there's no looking back.   Often times, whatever choice you make is not even canonical to the game, and cutscenes or other comments made later on seem to indicate that the game dismiss your choice and change it to whatever the game wants.

Furthermore, failing a mission requires you to repeat it.   Repeating a failed mission should be optional at most, and should be considered part of the story, leading to new missions based on the change of events at least.   The exception to this should be the player's death--except for games like GTA where you just wake up at a hospital and go about your business.

I do believe I'd actually pay $100 for a (new) game if it had 100+ missions and cutscenes scripted in and the game only chose those that canonically fit with missions you'd failed or actions otherwise taken in those missions (such as killing someone you weren't supposed to).   Of course, the game would still have to be good.   I applaud games that do in fact make only certain missions available based on your "alignment".   If I can remember correctly, Fallout 3 does this.

In games where your actions are taken into consideration, you usually end up being treated like either the Pope or Charles Manson.   Or, in some confusing situations, some may treat you one way and others will treat you another way (such is the case with Assassin's Creed 2) without any real reasoning for it.Gimmicky "Enhancements"When a studio develops a sequel, they always try and find a way to enhance the game--an admirable goal if the result wasn't gimmicks that don't truly enhance the gameplay.   In NFS Undercover, how many people used the little quick 180° feature?   How many people even got it to work correctly?   I sure as hell didn't.

And hey, Valve, get rid of the fucking defibrillator from L4D2.   It has no use; no one uses it once they have the Shock Jock and Heartwarmer achievements.   It's a cute idea, but in the end it's just another failed gimmick.   The same goes with the whole dynamic cemetary and mall.   It's not really disorienting, it just makes the game kind of tedious.   When you can get a whole dynamic, Director-created map, then we'll talk.   Until then, nice try.

Gimmicks don't just stop with actual gameplay.   No, sometimes stories can be gimmicky, and even dialogue.   If you've spent even 10 minutes playing Modern Warfare 2, then you've surely noticed a rather repetitious term blurted out of everyone's mouth every 30 seconds:   Oscar Mike.   It's a phonetic NATO term for "OM" which means "on the move".   MW2 makes use of it so much, I can feel my teeth cracking under the grinding pressure of severe anger onset each time it's uttered.   Anymore, I just laugh and think to myself, "Aww, Infinity Ward learned a new term.   How cute!"   It's overused and comes off as a gimmick as opposed to immersive reality.Rating Games Above 90%Here's one for the game critics and reviewers.   Sure, you can call me a hypocrite for this one, but I'm not a professional reviewer.   I don't have a reputation founded on my reviews.   I don't receive gifts and kickbacks from companies to give out good reviews.   Oh yeah, that last one is what really kills all the reviews.

The problem is that just about all big name games are rated at over 90% by major reviewers.   Do they deserve it?   Well, that's hard to say, considering that they don't have anything to be compared to.   You can't call something an A if it's compared to other As.   It seems to me, all reviews should be re-evaluated.   Let's be honest, the next major game will be bland and follow the same formula as all the rest.   It's actually a high C.   But God forbid someone actually gives it such a review.   It'd have to look like a PS1 game and constantly give out a high-pitched squeal as its only audio to ever even be looked at inn a negative light.

It's probably the biggest issue the gaming industry faces.   I, for one, will be rethinking how I review and reflecting this in any future reviews--whether game, film, or anything else.Letting EA Develop GamesIt had to be said.   They show no pride in their work and most of their games violate at least one entry on this list.   Once EA buys out a studio, the quality of the games it develops is sure to take a steep dive, which prompts EA to close it down for not making any money.   Hmm, yeah, I wonder whose fault that is.   Oh wait, no I don't; it's EA's.