Sign in to follow this  
Roots

Your most depised game "features"

Recommended Posts

choffstein    1090
Quote:
Original post by Roots
I much more inclined to agree with Rasterman that it was an artificial limitation imposed for pathfinding, but then again the original C&C which was released 3 years prior to Allacrost had no such limitation, nor did I ever notice any slowdown when moving a large group of units. So I have to wonder what the difference was between the pathfinding algorithms employed in these two games.


Snicker. Roots, get Allacrost off your mind mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom    352
Game: Most single player games
Feature: Lack of multiplayer co-op
Comment: I understand it isn't easy to implement, which is why not every game has it, but virtually no games have it, and so many people want it. Halo is one of the best series in the history of gaming, not only because both Halos have been completely awesome games (if you're into shooters), but because they've had two-player co-op. Every shooter I've seen since Halo cannot compete simply because it doesn't have co-op. The only deep, involving game I've ever seen with co-op is System Shock 2 (one of my all-time faves).

Games I wish had co-op: Outcast (still my contender for the best game ever made), Gothic I/II/III (I understand Gothic I was going to have co-op when they were using the Quake engine, and then they changed plans), any of the Elder Scrolls (especially Oblivion), Alien Shooter 1/2 (what the hell were they thinking?), Doom 3 (at least there's a mod now), Quake 4, Thief: Deadly Shadows (some MP game types would have been nice; Thievery mod for UT doesn't count), Deus Ex 1/2 (there's a co-op mod for the original, but it doesn't utilize the original missions), Far Cry (co-op mod is way broken), Vampire: Bloodlines — and Half-life 2 for that matter; Sven co-op is dead as far as I'm concerned — and finally, Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl (again, they were planning co-op, stripped it out toward the end).

You can tell I'm a co-op gamer. I don't like competitive games. But, seriously, if we're talking "features," here's my grievance:

Game: Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
Feature: It's a shooter
Comment: Did the developers have any idea the whole Cthulhu mythos is about investigating creepy things and not shooting/sneaking around? It should have been an adventure game, like the old ones (no pun intended).

We all could rant on this matter for hours, and that's a good thing. It's interesting to see what people hate so we can cater to a specific audience. My peaves generally involved poorly designed UI's made by people who don't understand the fundamental principles of visual programming, how a mouse works, and so on. MMORPG's will go down in history as having the worst designed GUI's in computer software. Anarchy Online will bear the crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JBourrie    1204
Game: Many, but modern JRPGs (such as Final Fantasy) are the biggest offenders
"Feature": Arbitrary quests that require a strategy guide
Final Fantasy XII is one of the worst offenders I've seen yet. Dozens of side quests, entire dungeons, hunts, loads of summon spells, the best weapon in the game, etc can only be obtained by performing some arbitrary and completely random act. This is a ploy by the publisher to sell more strategy guides and increase their profit, and I find it to be extremely rude to the players. I want to be able to say "I 100% mastered this game without using the guide" like I could with older games in the series. Instead, I pretty much have to sit with the guide in my lap and read some side missions step by step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ezbez    1164
Quote:
Original post by ajones
Game: Halo (1 and 2?)... and many others 'featuring' a torch
Feature: Torch battery drains
Comments: It's dark -> I can't see anything -> slightly annoyed. TORCH ON -> okay, continue... Torch battery expires -> TORCH OFF -> WTF. Wait until torch battery recharges... TORCH ON-> okay, continue... [rinse, repeat]

I know the torch is intended to increase the sense of atmosphere in dark, scary games (I see the point), but [1] I don't have a torch in real life that dies every minute or two, [2] surely the designer could have added the intended atmosphere another way (sound, gameplay, story...?), and [3] all the designer has achieved is for me to sit and wait for the recharge anyway... grr!


Play Half-Life 2: Episode 1. They have a couple of fights that have a whole new dimension just because of the lack of light and batteries for the flashlight. It might change your opinion. Waiting to recharge between fights might be boring, but needing to do it in the middle of a fight with zombies that you can't see coming from all directions is quite entertaining. Possibly frustrating, but certainly not boring.




Game: Doom games
Feature: Jokes
Comments: Isn't this game supposed to be scary? Why are they cracking jokes? Am I supposed to be afraid or laugh? I am confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trillian    410
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Game: Megaman and Megaman X
Feature: Sequels which don't carryover weapons from the original
Comments: Why? I got all these weapons and enhancements in Megaman X5 (for the record it could be any megaman) and in Megaman X6 I have to find the same enhancements again and start off as a weakling that doesn't have access to anything I had before. Why?


Do you really see yourself playing Megaman X8 with the weapons from megaman 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7? That'd be a bit crazy lol

Game: Megaman X7(?)/X8
Feature: 3D
Comments: Don't even try, megaman will always be cooler in 2D with sprites.

Game: Megaman Xes
Feature: Repetitive storyline
Comments: Here's the average megaman X storyline : a new group of malicious robots was formed. Meanwhile, the resistance welcome a new crew member (*cough* Double *cough* Axl *cough*). Zero has been killed, it's part must be found to build him again. The shadowy mysterious head of the new group sends out 8 mavericks to destroy stuff. You collect Zero's parts, build him back. The new resistence member is a traitor, you kill him. You get in the dephts of the enemy base and see the shadowy mysterious dude... OMG IT WAS SIGMA! You beat him, then he comes back with his new "ultimate body", you beat him again then credits with megaman talking on a hill with the enemy base exploding in the background.

Seriously they could vary the scheme a little bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sirisian    2263
Game: Planetside
Feature: new content
Comments: Okay not so much about the content, but kind of. If you're going to make one of the best games ever then totally choose to not support it then why even make it? Choosing to purposely not advertise a game that is created is bogus. Why make it if you never put aside revenue for more servers. I mean it's the only game I know of where the player-base is made solely upon people who "accidently found it online." Also releasing it when huge parts of the game were completely glitched (if you never played it when it came out, they had training where you couldn't do it because somebody coded the second part wrong and it would never go forward, they decided to fix it a very long time after release). Also if you're going to promise new content for a dieing game, why in the world would you raise the subscription from 12.99 to 14.99. /rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roots    1625
Quote:
Original post by visage
Quote:
Original post by Roots
I much more inclined to agree with Rasterman that it was an artificial limitation imposed for pathfinding, but then again the original C&C which was released 3 years prior to Allacrost had no such limitation, nor did I ever notice any slowdown when moving a large group of units. So I have to wonder what the difference was between the pathfinding algorithms employed in these two games.


Snicker. Roots, get Allacrost off your mind mate.


Ahaha, yeah maybe I should take a break from coding. [wink] I edited my post to fix it.

Quote:
Original post by JBourrie
Game: Many, but modern JRPGs (such as Final Fantasy) are the biggest offenders
"Feature": Arbitrary quests that require a strategy guide
Final Fantasy XII is one of the worst offenders I've seen yet. Dozens of side quests, entire dungeons, hunts, loads of summon spells, the best weapon in the game, etc can only be obtained by performing some arbitrary and completely random act. This is a ploy by the publisher to sell more strategy guides and increase their profit, and I find it to be extremely rude to the players. I want to be able to say "I 100% mastered this game without using the guide" like I could with older games in the series. Instead, I pretty much have to sit with the guide in my lap and read some side missions step by step.


Oh I agree with you there, although I still think in older games you either needed a lot of time, or a guide to be able to complete a game at 100%. But you're right, stupid arbitrary things like talking to person X in between events A and B to get super weapon W is just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joystickgenie    139
Game: Castlevania (and a ridiculous number of other games)
Feature: Keys for door being located in the opposite corner of the castle.
Comments: What kind of a sick bastard is Dracula to have the keys for his castles basement located in the very tip of the tower and the key for the treasure chest that’s in the tower located at the bottom of the basement. Sometimes in places that are to ridiculous to fathom (how did the key for the weapons locker get to be floating in the air 30 ft where you have do a double jump to reach it, if you can double jump that is)
Granted having them right next to the door would be stupid too but put them somewhere that makes sense at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wodinoneeye    1689


Games with no continuous save points and the save points far apart and on top of that a @#$%^&* long cut scene that you cant bypass and have to listen to 100 times before you solve the endless hop skip & jump sequence that gets you to the next Save point.

PC games ported from console games by cheap*ss dimwits who dont even know how to (or didnt care to have) reassign keypress commands (and many commands are alot of sliding menus designed for very few buttons on a controller).
Similarly ported console games that dont reflect the same timing of a console controller onto a keyboard/mouse making alot of playing harder/frustrating.
And of course the old crutch of resorting to the Cheats doesnt work (to get you past the other #$%^@& mis-porting defects) because they didnt port them.


Poorly designed controls -- like a popup box close button that is quite tiny and you have to click it several thousand times over the lifespan of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smoothballer    100
Game: Halo 2
Feature: Matchmaking
Comments: The only reason I don't play Halo 2 anymore. Forces you to play the gametypes and levels BUNGIE wants you to play, not what YOU want to play. I hate it more then anything, makes me despise Halo 2. I can't wait for Halo 3 to correct this issue.

Game: Gears of War
Feature: the A button
Comments: Think they could've crammed any more moves on to that A button? I mean, dayum. Half your controls are mapped to it. Let's see, hold A to run, tap A to dive, tap A near a wall to take cover. (ok so I'm exaggerating a little) But those are three very critical actions in the game. Every match starts out with everybody running, followed by taking cover, and then close quarter combat usually consists of plenty of rolling. While running or rolling, it's very easy to accidentally take cover. But the thing that really gets me is that Y and LB have basically the same function, or at least they easily could, thus freeing up a button for "take cover."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kest    547
Quote:
Original post by lightbringer
Quote:
Original post by Kaze
Game:too many to count
Feature: at very start of game long winded fmv
Comments: the thing is i don't really give a damn about the complete history of the game world before iv even started playing, have it told by npc's or books in the game that i can choose to ignore or if it has to be a long fmv do it after iv played a bit and am actually interested. Try to foreshadow the plot a bit and after the player is curios about all the plot hooks then explain the background behind them.


I, on the other hand, absolutely love beginning FMV's :D Especially when they're done tastefully, like in Warcraft III. Most games could benefit from more cut-scenes and more pre-rendered FMV's.

I agree with both of you, but I think Kaze makes a great point concerning RPGs and adventure games. Not only regarding FMVs, but any type of other cut-scenes as well. We can still have an intro, but also give the player a reason to care first. I too have been often annoyed by detailed intros to games, even when they are stunning and interesting. I think it's important to give the player control as soon as possible. Throw some crazy concepts in his face, make him curious, then show a cut-scene to introduce the world. Final Fantasy VI is a simple example of how it can be done. Granted, that intro was just credits on the SNES, but that would have been a perfect place to put an FMV intro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roots    1625
Game: various RPGs
Feature: always putting the save points right before a boss
Comments: not only does it give away that a tough battle is coming up very soon, but it also cheapens the danger sense of the boss, because the player knows that if they screw up, they can easily reload the game and not lose very much progress at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunTzu    286
Quote:
Original post by Roots
Game: various RPGs
Feature: always putting the save points right before a boss
Comments: not only does it give away that a tough battle is coming up very soon, but it also cheapens the danger sense of the boss, because the player knows that if they screw up, they can easily reload the game and not lose very much progress at all.


Good.

I am playing games for fun. It is a pastime. I have better things to do with my time than replay an entire level plus the boss at the end because you decided I'm not allowed to save. Let me play the game my way.

Ninety-Nine Nights was one of the worst examples for this I've ever come across. It takes a good twenty minutes to get through the first level, and it's easy, you kill thousands of baddies in that time. Then there's a troll at the end, and he's quite tough especially as you're still getting used to the game. I died three times to that troll before defeating it at the fourth attempt, and because there are no save points in the game, that means the first twenty minutes were fun and the next hour was deadly dull ("I've already done this... I've already killed fifteen thousand baddies but now I have to do it all again... that bloody troll...").

I did kill the troll in the end, but when I encountered a similar problem on the second level except this time it took forty minutes to get through the level, I took the disc out of the console and have never even looked at it again since. I will not play a game that demands I devote my entire life to it, because my life has more important things in it than that.

Therefore:

Game: every other game in history.
Feature: lack of save points, or stupidly placed save points "to make the game harder". This especially applies on PC or any console with a hard drive, when I should be able to save the game at absolutely any point in time I choose. I accept that consoles that only have memory cards might have issues with that, but in that case at least put the save points close together.
Comments: I'm playing the game. My girlfriend decides she wants to watch a DVD, or go out for a meal, or even have sex (I can but hope). I now have a choice between (a) losing the last hour's play but keeping the lady happy or (b) continue playing until some indeterminate time in the future when I can save my progress, and hope she doesn't dump me in the meantime. There's only one winner, frankly, and if the limits of your ability to design games revolve around this stupid, stupid, stupid crutch of denying me the ability to fit the game into my life instead of the other way around, I think very little of your abilities as a game designer.

Rant over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sneftel    1788
Quote:
Original post by Roots
not only does it give away that a tough battle is coming up very soon, but it also cheapens the danger sense of the boss, because the player knows that if they screw up, they can easily reload the game and not lose very much progress at all.

If the player's sense of danger relies on him having to waste time replaying earlier level stuff if he dies, you have failed as a game designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kest    547
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Quote:
Original post by Roots
not only does it give away that a tough battle is coming up very soon, but it also cheapens the danger sense of the boss, because the player knows that if they screw up, they can easily reload the game and not lose very much progress at all.

If the player's sense of danger relies on him having to waste time replaying earlier level stuff if he dies, you have failed as a game designer.

Possibly. But how can you succeed with danger intact? If there's nothing to lose by failing, there is no danger. We could just not reload them at all. Give them a "you failed this mission" message and have the consequences fall into the game world. Would work for a sandbox game, but probably not so well for linear games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunTzu    286
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Possibly. But how can you succeed with danger intact? If there's nothing to lose by failing, there is no danger.


The only thing they have to lose is their own time. Time is something that means a lot to people, especially if they only get a few hours a week to play games. No matter what you do, this will remain true.

Therefore, make them want to succeed by creating a sense of immersion, an attachment to the game, the world, and the characters in it. Of course, this will not materially change what they have to lose, because they can always restart and try again. But that's something you can't change anyway. It's just a game! If you attempt to make it more "dangerous" by forcing them to re-invest large amounts of time if they lose, all you will succeed in doing is pissing people off.

Artificially inflated difficulty was fine when you only had 16KB to play with, or were writing an arcade game where you had to keep sucking in the next 10p. If you're not working under either of those conditions, and feel a need to make the game more difficult than it needs to be because you are too incompetent to find a better way to keep people playing, then you are writing the game to make yourself feel good by punishing the player, and that's not a game I, for one, want to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha_ProgDes    6921
Quote:
Original post by Trillian
Quote:
Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Game: Megaman and Megaman X
Feature: Sequels which don't carryover weapons from the original
Comments: Why? I got all these weapons and enhancements in Megaman X5 (for the record it could be any megaman) and in Megaman X6 I have to find the same enhancements again and start off as a weakling that doesn't have access to anything I had before. Why?


Do you really see yourself playing Megaman X8 with the weapons from megaman 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7? That'd be a bit crazy lol

Game: Megaman X7(?)/X8
Feature: 3D
Comments: Don't even try, megaman will always be cooler in 2D with sprites.

Game: Megaman Xes
Feature: Repetitive storyline
Comments: Here's the average megaman X storyline : a new group of malicious robots was formed. Meanwhile, the resistance welcome a new crew member (*cough* Double *cough* Axl *cough*). Zero has been killed, it's part must be found to build him again. The shadowy mysterious head of the new group sends out 8 mavericks to destroy stuff. You collect Zero's parts, build him back. The new resistence member is a traitor, you kill him. You get in the dephts of the enemy base and see the shadowy mysterious dude... OMG IT WAS SIGMA! You beat him, then he comes back with his new "ultimate body", you beat him again then credits with megaman talking on a hill with the enemy base exploding in the background.

Seriously they could vary the scheme a little bit


Technically, Megaman and Megaman X are two different people. But yeah! If I got all these weapons from Megaman X 1 - 7, I better damn well be able to access them in Megaman X8. Especially the weapons, armors, and hearts, that upgrade Megaman himself!

And why can't Megaman ever be 2 player? Why can't I have Zero and X on the same screen? Is that soooooo bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kest    547
Quote:
Original post by SunTzu
The only thing they have to lose is their own time. Time is something that means a lot to people, especially if they only get a few hours a week to play games. No matter what you do, this will remain true.

I agree. I would never suggest throwing players back to the beginning of some stage or area when they die to repeat something decently scaled over again. They've already successfully finished that area.

Quote:
Therefore, make them want to succeed by creating a sense of immersion, an attachment to the game, the world, and the characters in it.

In my opinion, checkpoints before bosses remove exactly these elements. If you want me to become immersed into a game where I can repeat a small specified event until I eventually win, it would be a game where the avatar is actually able to do so without means of reloading the game (Sands of Time). If I'm immortal, then make me immortal. Why the foreplay with loading screens? Designers are not tricking players into thinking they didn't have to die and reload to eventually win.

Quote:
It's just a game! If you attempt to make it more "dangerous" by forcing them to re-invest large amounts of time if they lose, all you will succeed in doing is pissing people off.

If I could pretend that you didn't include the word 'large' in that statement, I could say that it's not always true. With games such as Mario, Hitman, Halo, and Half Life, I enjoyed being thrown back for dying. Without that, the games would have had no challenge at all. I may as well have had infinite health.

Quote:
If you're not working under either of those conditions, and feel a need to make the game more difficult than it needs to be because you are too incompetent to find a better way to keep people playing, then you are writing the game to make yourself feel good by punishing the player, and that's not a game I, for one, want to play.

Even if someone did get jollies by punishing others, I doubt satisfaction could be gained by dishing it out passively to gamers. Geez man, what fun would that be? At least torture someone you can observe during the suffering.

Sorry, I didn't mean to veer the topic off-course. Just wanted to post my thoughts on the fact that this problem is, as far as I can tell, currently un-fixable. There doesn't seem to be an answer that makes 30% of gamers happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sneftel    1788
Quote:
Original post by Kest
If there's nothing to lose by failing, there is no danger.

Do you lose all interest in a book or movie after having read or watched it once? Are suspense and immersion entirely absent because you already know how it ends? Or does the atmosphere of the work itself draw you into its emotional conceit regardless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trillian    410
Game: Viewtiful Joe 2
Feature: Sylvia
Comments: Is there so much to add?
Feature: No fun unlockables
Comments: Come on how could they have about 4 unlockable characters in the first game and none in the sequel?

Game: Geometry Wars
Feature: No co-op
Comments: A co-op mode in this game would be simply amazing

Games: Doukutsu / Cave story, Yoshi's Island, Zelda 2, Zelda : A link to the past, Zelda : Ocarina of Time, Super Metroid, Super Mario 64, Jet's 'N' Guns and a bunch of others
Feature: Ending
Comments: Why did these game have an ending? I would have spent the rest of my life playing them if it wasn't for this feature!! That clearly was a bad design decision. :P

Game: The game I'm working on
Feature: Uncompleteness
Comments: I seriously think this game would be better if it was completed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jasjas    262
Game: Most console RPGs, adventures
Feature: Long-winded text or FMVs at the beginning
Comments: Whatever happened to the old days of being able to play immediately after starting the game? In the original Legend of Zelda, you can play right off the bat. Hmmm, there's a cave nearby... I wonder what's inside? In modern console games, you are usually "treated" to a cheesy save-the-world storyline. And if that story is shown as text boxes, like the 10 minutes at the start of Super Paper Mario, it makes it even worse.

Disclaimer: The games in the Zelda and Mario series are still among my favorites. When I start a new game, I just want to play, dammit! Let me find out the story myself by talking to NPCs, fighting monsters, or exploring the countryside, just like the old days.

Game: Metroid Prime 2
Feature: Very long boss fights
Comments: Some of the boss fights in that game, like Emperor Ing, take forever to kill. Each shot generally knocks off less than 1% of the boss' total hit points. If you want to make a boss fight more difficult, why not just increase the boss' attack power and also increase the attack power of your shots so it takes less time to fight the boss? I don't want to die 30 minutes into a boss fight and have to do it all over again. This problem is especially worse if the boss has multiple forms.

Game: Metroid Prime 2 again
Feature: Very difficult boss fights in relation to the rest of the game
Comments: Why does this game let you breeze through the levels, only to be confronted with a boss fight that is an order of magnitude more difficult that the rest of the game? Sure, make the boss fight challenging, but do not make it so much more difficult than the rest of the game. It doesn't make for smooth gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaze    948
Quote:
Original post by jasjas
Game: Metroid Prime 2
Feature: Very long boss fights
Comments: Some of the boss fights in that game, like Emperor Ing, take forever to kill. Each shot generally knocks off less than 1% of the boss' total hit points. If you want to make a boss fight more difficult, why not just increase the boss' attack power and also increase the attack power of your shots so it takes less time to fight the boss? I don't want to die 30 minutes into a boss fight and have to do it all over again. This problem is especially worse if the boss has multiple forms.


id like to extend this

Game: lots of games
Feature: Very long boss fights
Comments: bosses that have very little attack power, attacks are easy to avoid and are generally harmless and would be easy to win except your thumb starts to go numb after 20 minutes of mashing the attack button

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kest    547
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Quote:
Original post by Kest
If there's nothing to lose by failing, there is no danger.

Do you lose all interest in a book or movie after having read or watched it once? Are suspense and immersion entirely absent because you already know how it ends? Or does the atmosphere of the work itself draw you into its emotional conceit regardless?

I enjoy many movies the second and third time just as much as the first. Sometimes more (Fight Club, Donnie Darko). But I enjoy them for the atmosphere, characters, and nostalgic effects. The suspense is mostly gone for me. Even more toward your point is the fact that suspense is still there when I'm gaming, even on the 30th attempt. Because at any one point, I could screw up and get whacked. And that would mean losing.. something. But that something always needs to exist, or there's no challenge.

With that said, I wasn't implying that the checkpoint-before-a-boss system removes danger. As long as the boss fight itself is a worthy challenge, then just getting the boss half-dead presents the danger. My point was that it's impossible to have a challenge without some type of loss that's inflicted when you fail. And in 80% of video gaming, that loss is repeating earlier stuff. Even when the earlier stuff is just 30 seconds.

Games like The Sims are impossible to fail, but they still have punishment. For example, losing your sim's job for staying up late, or angering their spouse for making out with other sims [smile]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sneftel    1788
Quote:
Original post by Kest
Just wanted to post my thoughts on the fact that this problem is, as far as I can tell, currently un-fixable. There doesn't seem to be an answer that makes 30% of gamers happy.
It is unfixable if and only if you assume full rationality. The only thing players have to lose is time; therefore, the only thing to threaten them with is loss of time; therefore, they will only feel threatened if faced with potential lost time. Luckily, players are not rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this