Game Various
Feature RTS with "RPG elements"
Comments The so called 'RPG elements' consist of a half assed levelling system for heroes, which is rarely interesting enough to make for a good RPG, but just complicated enough to distract (and detract) from the RTS gameplay. The single player campaigns are particularly awful, basically consisting of your hero traipsing along a rather linear map path meeting units that either join you or try and kill you.
Your most depised game "features"
Game: The Total War Series, most FPS games, sports games
Feature: The difficulty system
Comments: I love these games, but the difficulty systems are retarded. Turning up the difficulty shouldn't make the monsters have more health or do more damage. They should have the same stats, but just be smarter. I know it's a pain to write AI's, and a little bit of stat improvement isn't, just don't make the difficulty solely based on that. I was playing Medieval once, and turned it up to expert. In one enemy sent a fairly weak infantry force at me, which I promptly charged from all sides with my very strong cavalry. They do this sort of thing on all difficulties, but this time my vastly superior troops with a vastly superior position lost to their incredibly weak, incredibly tactically stupid force. Another example, in Fifa World Cup 2002, there are some buttons to do various juke, dodge, and general ball handling moves to dribble past the opponent. On the lowest difficulty settings, these work fine, but if you increase it, these moves will work about 1% of the time, and to successfully win, you have to abandon these moves altogether. That is just stupid.
Game: MMORPGs, particularly Runescape, and RPGs in general
Feature: Character Progression/Pvp systems, "Pure" Characters
Comments: When I level up in a game, I expect that this should make my character more powerful. In Runescape, for example, leveling up raises your overall level, which means you have to fight higher level people, as the system only allows you to fight people near your level. This means that the only thing that matters is relative power, not overall. If you raise something that is useless, it makes you less powerful. There should be no best character build, nor should training and increasing your stats make you weaker.
Feature: The difficulty system
Comments: I love these games, but the difficulty systems are retarded. Turning up the difficulty shouldn't make the monsters have more health or do more damage. They should have the same stats, but just be smarter. I know it's a pain to write AI's, and a little bit of stat improvement isn't, just don't make the difficulty solely based on that. I was playing Medieval once, and turned it up to expert. In one enemy sent a fairly weak infantry force at me, which I promptly charged from all sides with my very strong cavalry. They do this sort of thing on all difficulties, but this time my vastly superior troops with a vastly superior position lost to their incredibly weak, incredibly tactically stupid force. Another example, in Fifa World Cup 2002, there are some buttons to do various juke, dodge, and general ball handling moves to dribble past the opponent. On the lowest difficulty settings, these work fine, but if you increase it, these moves will work about 1% of the time, and to successfully win, you have to abandon these moves altogether. That is just stupid.
Game: MMORPGs, particularly Runescape, and RPGs in general
Feature: Character Progression/Pvp systems, "Pure" Characters
Comments: When I level up in a game, I expect that this should make my character more powerful. In Runescape, for example, leveling up raises your overall level, which means you have to fight higher level people, as the system only allows you to fight people near your level. This means that the only thing that matters is relative power, not overall. If you raise something that is useless, it makes you less powerful. There should be no best character build, nor should training and increasing your stats make you weaker.
Quote:Original post by treetrunker
If you raise something that is useless, it makes you less powerful.
If you make wrong moves in chess, you lose.
Quote:Original post by treetrunker
There should be no best character build
I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you should be able to take any decision while building your character and there should be no difference in usefulness? That a totally random build, choosing skills and attributes by coin-toss should be as good as the best calculated combination of skill synergies?
I don't think I'd play such a game.
Quote:Original post by ZanshibumiQuote:Original post by treetrunker
There should be no best character build
I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you should be able to take any decision while building your character and there should be no difference in usefulness? That a totally random build, choosing skills and attributes by coin-toss should be as good as the best calculated combination of skill synergies?
I don't think I'd play such a game.
yes they should, otherwise your just punishing the player for not understanding the games often nonsensical play mechanics
the problem is there is no strategy involved other than mabey "buy the strategy guide" or "read the optimal build guide on game faq"
Quote:Original post by Kaze
yes they should, otherwise your just punishing the player for not understanding the games often nonsensical play mechanics
Indeed. About everything in life "punishes" those who don't understand it.
Quote:Original post by Kaze
the problem is there is no strategy involved other than mabey "buy the strategy guide" or "read the optimal build guide on game faq"
Or you could have a game which build strategy depends on temporal or situational circumstances unpredictable by the faq writer.
I see we just see games from a different perspective. I can't win when there's no way of losing, I don't enjoy thinking on what can be done thoughtlessly.
Sorry for the derailing.
Quote:Original post by KazeI've never seen a game that requires an even remotely optimal build. Outside of Diablo II, I suppose. Every RPG I've played that allows customizable builds has enough room for you to experiment a bit without making the game unplayable. While you may not get the most effective results, that just means that the game is slightly harder to complete. Not impossible by any stretch of the word.Quote:Original post by Zanshibumiyes they should, otherwise your just punishing the player for not understanding the games often nonsensical play mechanicsQuote:Original post by treetrunkerI must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you should be able to take any decision while building your character and there should be no difference in usefulness? That a totally random build, choosing skills and attributes by coin-toss should be as good as the best calculated combination of skill synergies?
There should be no best character build
I don't think I'd play such a game.
the problem is there is no strategy involved other than mabey "buy the strategy guide" or "read the optimal build guide on game faq"
I do think that customized level-up mechanisms could be simpler, but given that they basically exist to give the obsessive players something to do, I'm not terribly concerned about them.
Quote:Original post by Zanshibumi
If you make wrong moves in chess, you lose.
How long is a single game of chess? How long is a single game of a MMORPG?
EDIT: Fixed attribution (I think the quote was fine, though?).
Quote:Original post by Derakon
I've never seen a game that requires an even remotely optimal build. Outside of Diablo II, I suppose. Every RPG I've played that allows customizable builds has enough room for you to experiment a bit without making the game unplayable. While you may not get the most effective results, that just means that the game is slightly harder to complete. Not impossible by any stretch of the word.
But shouldn't the person who's more skilled be given the harder challenges to keep things interesting for him? Shouldn't the easier challenges be given to the newbie who's just learning the ropes?
[Edited by - Way Walker on May 8, 2007 5:10:20 PM]
Game: Dune II
Feature: You can only select one unit at a time
Comments: Okay, so maybe the technology and what not wasn't good enough in 1992, but honestly, one unit at a time? By the time you've told your army to attack, there is a nice little stream of army units headed toward the enemy. Problem: your units end up in a single file line, so the first half die without even getting a shot off.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Sonic Tanks
Comments: These were cool and all, but you can't use them in a combination with any other units, otherwise you'd kill yourself. At least make your own units immune to the friendly fire.
Game: Dune II
Feature: The freaking Ornithopter!
Comments: Why can't you control these little devils!?! You spend 600 to watch your unit attack a tiny turret! Stupid things attack the Palace, not the wall!
Game: Dune II
Feature: Saboteur
Comments: For the special, ultimate unit for Ordos, I'd expect something more like an army of Saboteurs. They can only kill a single building, but they rarely ever make it there. It's lame.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Harvester and Caryall AI
Comments: There's more spice than one could ever wish for in to the left of your base, but when your Harvester is done harvesting to the right of your base, it just sits there waiting for a sandworm. And don't even get me started on Caryalls.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Spice Credit bug
Comments: If you harvest a ton of spice and get above some odd number, then your total freaks out and ends up giving you credits when you spend credits, and subtracting credits when your harvester returns with spice.
Sorry, this probably is being to harsh on the greatest game ever invented. But these are some really big nags of mine. But I really truly do love the game more than anything else that I've ever played
Feature: You can only select one unit at a time
Comments: Okay, so maybe the technology and what not wasn't good enough in 1992, but honestly, one unit at a time? By the time you've told your army to attack, there is a nice little stream of army units headed toward the enemy. Problem: your units end up in a single file line, so the first half die without even getting a shot off.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Sonic Tanks
Comments: These were cool and all, but you can't use them in a combination with any other units, otherwise you'd kill yourself. At least make your own units immune to the friendly fire.
Game: Dune II
Feature: The freaking Ornithopter!
Comments: Why can't you control these little devils!?! You spend 600 to watch your unit attack a tiny turret! Stupid things attack the Palace, not the wall!
Game: Dune II
Feature: Saboteur
Comments: For the special, ultimate unit for Ordos, I'd expect something more like an army of Saboteurs. They can only kill a single building, but they rarely ever make it there. It's lame.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Harvester and Caryall AI
Comments: There's more spice than one could ever wish for in to the left of your base, but when your Harvester is done harvesting to the right of your base, it just sits there waiting for a sandworm. And don't even get me started on Caryalls.
Game: Dune II
Feature: Spice Credit bug
Comments: If you harvest a ton of spice and get above some odd number, then your total freaks out and ends up giving you credits when you spend credits, and subtracting credits when your harvester returns with spice.
Sorry, this probably is being to harsh on the greatest game ever invented. But these are some really big nags of mine. But I really truly do love the game more than anything else that I've ever played
Quote:Original post by Way Walker
*Misquote*
I'll open a new thread to avoid derailing this one.
http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=447126
Game: Xbox live
Feature: Needless Online mode/achievements
Comments: it seams that every game in existence must have an online component to it now. Some games are meant to be single player and that is alright. I don’t need to know that I am better at the trampoline game in Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude then my buddy and I don’t need to be rewarded with an achievement for entering the options screen of madden.
Feature: Needless Online mode/achievements
Comments: it seams that every game in existence must have an online component to it now. Some games are meant to be single player and that is alright. I don’t need to know that I am better at the trampoline game in Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude then my buddy and I don’t need to be rewarded with an achievement for entering the options screen of madden.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
