I'll start first and state that I haven't read the majority of the posts, but these are some of my most despised game features.

Game: Pretty much any game in the past 10 years.
Feature: The required introductory tutorial.
Comments: I don't care if they mix it up with the actual game play or have a separated tutorial, but I despise being forced to play through it. Yes, I know X is jump. I don't need to practice hitting X three times for no apparent purpose. I can read the manual, and even if I couldn't, I'm sure I'd figure out that X means jump when the character jumps when I press it during gameplay. Besides, most likely the more advanced tutorial stuff I'm going to forget anyway until I get to a section where I need to relearn it.

If you're going to have an introductory level, have it be completely optional at the title screen, or handle it like in System Shock 2, where it's optional in the game.

And this goes into my other feature I despise:

Game: Pretty much any console RPG, and many games in the past 10 years
Feature: The 40+ hour game
Comments: I personally believe games should offer a fun experience from beginning to end. Now, many 40+ hour games seem to really be a 15 hour game with 30 hours of filler, which makes the game much worse than it could have been. Now, I realize people complain about short games, but I view this as either the game is lacking content for price versus quanitity (such as many XBox 360 games with micro transactions, where in order to get the full game, you end up spending $100+) and games which leave you wanting more. If they leave you wanting more in a good way, this is a sign of a great game. And I'd rather pay the $50 for that and have an enjoyable 15 hours of play than a mediocre time playing a 100 hour RPG. To me, I believe that a game should be possible to be beaten in a speed run of under 2 hours. But you have to be really, really good to do that. Players should play for over 40 hours because they want too. Not because they're forced to with Random Battle™ #149318.

Quote:Original post by Omid Ghavami
Game: Sims
Feature: Need x number of friends for promotion at work.
Comments: It takes away a lot of the fun, at least for me.

I Agree with you. I wonder, if they would have put in "American psycho serial killer" as a profession, would you still need X friends to advance? I thought even the nerdy job requiring friends was a stretch. Nerds are usually exclusively introvert.

Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum
Were the physics-based puzzles in Half-Life 2 unfun?

Yes. It felt like I was giving a demonstration at an E3 booth.

Quote:Original post by SunTzu
Let me guess... you're a student? Or unemployed? Or otherwise have lots of free time?

I know it's not fair to assume things about the gaming masses. But my first guess would be that one thing the majority of gamers usually have is free time. It's great to let players get out of a game ASAP without losing progress, and other typical courtesies, but developing games for gamers that are in a hurry just doesn't seem like the right answer. It seems like the wrong answer. This doesn't mean I agree with reseting players to repeat past challenges for failing current challenges. Just that I don't think the lack of free time scenario is a good direction to observe the problem from.

Quote:You can play the game the way you want to play it - that's fine. Save very rarely and convince yourself you're having more fun. Let me play the game the way I want to play it, too. I will save very frequently and get to actually see all the cool stuff that's in the game.

One design decision (save when you want, or at least have frequent save points) allows both of us to enjoy the game

It would be fantastic if this argument were true. "The design that favors me favors everyone" does not hold up. I won't go into the obscure reasons why the availability to save can screw up some gamer experiences (since I've listed them in this forum so many times by now), I'll just say that they can and do. Even to those of us without much time.

Quote:If, as a game designer, you make the choice based on what you like, not what other people might like, then the chances are very high you are not designing the the kinds of games I (for one) want to play.

That's tough. That's the way it goes. If designers are not making choices based on what they personally enjoy in gaming, then they are in the wrong business. That's not to say that other opinions are not very important, but if a few argue with, and a few against, then stick to your own logic. I've been through enough saving threads to know that the topic is split down the middle. Even I personally enjoy both types of situations, depending on the type of game. Sometimes saving often is nice (Halo on Legendary), and sometimes not being allowed to save when I want is better (Resident Evil).

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Solution that fits everyone: make it one way of determining difficulty. Really, don't put in a hard, medium, easy, put in different variables to change and make one of them the number and placement of save points. Think of Fallout Tactics' "Ironman" mode where you can only save between missions.

I agree. This works for me. By why the avoidance of the difficulty levels? Are we trying not to offend gamers who want to pretend they're not playing the game on 'easy'? There's nothing wrong with playing on easy if you don't have time to fail [smile]

edit: Inserted not.

Quote:Original post by Kest
"The design that favors me favors everyone" does not hold up.

....

If designers are not making choices based on what they personally enjoy in gaming, then they are in the wrong business.

Balancing these two ideas is probably the trick. [smile]

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Way Walker
Solution that fits everyone: make it one way of determining difficulty. Really, don't put in a hard, medium, easy, put in different variables to change and make one of them the number and placement of save points. Think of Fallout Tactics' "Ironman" mode where you can only save between missions.

I agree. This works for me. By why the avoidance of the difficulty levels? Are we trying not to offend gamers who want to pretend they are playing the game on 'easy'? There's nothing wrong with playing on easy if you don't have time to fail [smile]

No, nothing wrong with that at all; I play on easy quite often. [smile]

I'm suggesting letting the player fine tune the difficulty to their tastes. Back in the day, I loved Lord of the Realms. One feature it had was that you could adjust economic and combat difficulties separately depending on your taste. What if I want tough gun fights but saves around every corner?

Or, if you prefer:

Game: Any with general difficulty settings (e.g. hard, medium, easy)
Feature: General difficulty settings (e.g. hard, medium, easy)
Comments: Sometimes I want to make one aspect harder (let's say, less ammo in the level) while keeping other aspects at the same level (let's say, the amount of ammo it takes to take out a baddie). Or, in a 4X, maybe I want more intriguing diplomacy but easier battles.

However, I don't really despise this feature; I simply think it can be improved upon.

Quote:Original post by cdoty

Quote:Original post by Xai
Why 12? Because of the number of pixels no the screen. The icons had to be sized as a balance between the number they can support, and the detail they can convey. They choose 12, because it was greater than or equal to the 4, 8, 10 and 12 limit which other RTS games with arbirtrary limits had, and yet allowed big enough icons to be usefull.

So, you mean the limit is 12 because they were too lazy or closed minded to find a better way to display the information?

It would make sense if 12 was a reasonable number for battles, but it isn't. That makes about as much sense as Microsoft (or any Linux desktop) only allowing 12 programs to show up in the start menu.

If you're selecting more than 12, maybe it's not as critical to know what each unit is. Easy answer, use increaingly smaller icons as the number of units increases.

It also encourages flanking, and attacking from multiple points (since you have to tell several hotkeys to attack, you may as well try to flank instead of stampede in).

Game: Nearly all.
Feature: Obtaining confirmation to exit the game at the title screen.
Comments: Please stop! My advice is a general rule: If nothing other than loading time is lost by accidently pressing a button, then don't get confirmation.

Quote:Original post by Way Walker

Quote:Original post by Kest
"The design that favors me favors everyone" does not hold up.
....
If designers are not making choices based on what they personally enjoy in gaming, then they are in the wrong business.

Balancing these two ideas is probably the trick. [smile]

Accepting the necessity of making some portion of the gaming community uncomfortable is different than assuming that all gamers will, at the least, be comfortable with the design you personally prefer. We should at least acknowledge the presence of the choice. What happens if you assume B is better than A because B is neutral, when B is not neutral?

Quote:Game: Any with general difficulty settings (e.g. hard, medium, easy)
Feature: General difficulty settings (e.g. hard, medium, easy)
Comments: Sometimes I want to make one aspect harder (let's say, less ammo in the level) while keeping other aspects at the same level (let's say, the amount of ammo it takes to take out a baddie). Or, in a 4X, maybe I want more intriguing diplomacy but easier battles.

I understand where you're coming from. I've played many games where I've wanted to change the specific difficulties to balance and enjoy it more. But I'm not sure the actual ability for gamers to do so would be a positive thing (for the gamers themselves). Sometimes less control is better.

Balance is also a huge factor. I didn't like the way Halo Elites couldn't be killed with headshots. But it would have been a nightmare for designers to balance the game if that were an option to switch on or off. The same is true with saving. Halo on the Legendary difficulty automatically gives you more checkpoints (the designers knew it was insane). Saving is something that significantly changes the balance in almost any game. General difficulty settings could be used to avoid the nightmare and only focus attention on 2 or 3 possible scenarios. And that's still 2 or 3 possible gaming experiences through the entire game; a big reason (I would guess) that most long RPG-like games don't have difficulty settings at all. Those that do probably have a save-anywhere feature to let gamers fix the balance issue [smile]

Game: Final Fantasy X
Feature: "New" battle system
Comments: Come on! The ATB is what set FF IV-IX apart from most JRPGs! What were they thinking?

Game: Chrono Cross
Feature: Endless number of playable characters and storyline that was way too non-linear, which led to plot holes and a confusing story.
Comments: Chrono Trigger is classic. This... wasn't.

Game: Batman Forever (Sega Genesis)
Feature: Huge number of moves and items ment about 20,000 different three-button combos to remember.
Comments: To quote Fujin: HATE.

Game: Final Fantasy VII
Feature: "THAT" scene.
Comments: So sad... Actually it enhanced the story a lot. But it was so sad...

Game: Console RPGs
Feature(s): Very simplistic character customization.
Comment: It's about time these console RPGs take a hint from PC RPGs and implement character classes and the ability for the game's protagonist to switch between character builds/classes.

Game: Console RPGs
Feature(s): Lack of multiple story perspectives
Comment: I understand why console RPGs need linear gameplay. Through linear gameplay, it gives the developers a chance to fine-tune the game and present a strong narrative. However, it would be nice if you could play as different casts of characters involved in a story to see the plot from different perspectives. Suikoden III (PS2) implemented this.

Game: Suikoden IV & V
Feature(s): Mute protagonist.
Comment: When your game has voice-acting then using a mute protagonist is a bad idea.

[Edited by - Yeshua666 on April 23, 2007 11:04:09 PM]