• Create Account

## Your most depised game "features"

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

142 replies to this topic

### #21Scint  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 09:51 AM

Warcraft 1 only allowed 4 units! But yeah, what Xai said, it's a UI thing. But I'd like to mention the Rise of Nations UI actually combined the two. You could select as many as you'd like and get portrait boxes too.

Game: The Sims and Sims 2
Feature: Going to the bathroom, washing dishes, taking a shower, and other mundane tasks
Comments: I absolutely hated telling my Sims to do these things. I have a belief that I should play video games to do things that I can't do in real life (like flying a spaceship or commanding armies). Why should I play a game to do everyday mundane things? While you can choose to not order your Sims to do these things, if you don't micromanage them they'll piss on the floor and never shower and miss work.

The only time it was fun to micromanage was when you are trying to get your guy to woo-hoo with every woman on the block (plus the maid) and not let them find out what's going on.

### #22Roots  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:11 AM

Quote:
 Original post by XaiAnyone who doesn't understand why starcraft has 12 unit selection limit doesn't belong on this site. Could they do better, sure, look at Warcraft 3, or other games that get it "right". Is the stupid limit worth complaining about, yes! But to not know WHY the limit exists, that's idiotic.It exists solely for the UI.

I don't buy that answer. First of all, I hardly ever look at my units health when I'm playing a SC game (its so f*#&ing hard to heal anything anyway, except for terran infantry by using medics), unless its a game where I have only a few units and each is absolutely vital to keep alive. They could easily make better use of that space by showing a single unit icon and a "x20" or however many of that unit there are, and then show the average health of the group instead, which IMO would be much more meaningful to the player.

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 StarCraft 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.

[Edited by - Roots on April 20, 2007 10:11:44 PM]

Hero of Allacrost - A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.
Latest release June, 2015 - GameDev annoucement

### #23Ahnfelt  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:32 AM

Quote:
 Original post by XaiAnyone who doesn't understand why starcraft has 12 unit selection limit doesn't belong on this site. Could they do better, sure, look at Warcraft 3, or other games that get it "right". Is the stupid limit worth complaining about, yes! But to not know WHY the limit exists, that's idiotic. [...]

You're saying the reason for the 12 unit limit is their avatars in the bottom of the screen. In Starcraft, these avatars provide no other function than a spiced up health bar. In most games you can see the selected units health bar anyways.

Don't call people idiots, especially not if you're going to present some very vague argument to support it.

Game: Hitman 2
Feature: Snipers that knows a real ninja from a fake 500 meters away.
Description: On one of the maps you have to go through a huge open map full of towers with snipers. If you're in line of sight to any of them, you'll be dead within seconds, even if you're disguised. And to top it off, the towers have no entrance (I wonder if the snipers were bourn in there), so you can't get up there and take care of them.

### #24Kaze  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:44 AM

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.

### #25Stani R.  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:55 AM

Quote:
 Original post by KazeGame:too many to countFeature: at very start of game long winded fmvComments: 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.

Game: Haegemonia
Feature: Arbitrarily tiny total unit limit.
Comments: You're only allowed something like ten units total, if I recall correctly. Try to defend six to ten colonies across three to five star systems with only ten units to maneuver with. By the time you get to your target, billions of colonists have died.

### #26choffstein  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 12:28 PM

Quote:
 Original post by RootsI 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.

### #27Tom  GDNet+

Posted 20 April 2007 - 12:30 PM

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.

### #28JBourrie  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 01:00 PM

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.

Check out my new game Smash and Dash at:

### #29Ezbez  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 01:10 PM

Quote:
 Original post by ajonesGame: Halo (1 and 2?)... and many others 'featuring' a torchFeature: Torch battery drainsComments: 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.

### #30Trillian  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 01:14 PM

Quote:
 Original post by Alpha_ProgDesGame: Megaman and Megaman XFeature: Sequels which don't carryover weapons from the originalComments: 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

### #31Sirisian  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 02:52 PM

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

### #32Roots  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:43 PM

Quote:
Original post by visage
Quote:
 Original post by RootsI 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 JBourrieGame: Many, but modern JRPGs (such as Final Fantasy) are the biggest offenders"Feature": Arbitrary quests that require a strategy guideFinal 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.

Hero of Allacrost - A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.
Latest release June, 2015 - GameDev annoucement

### #33Joystickgenie  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 04:53 PM

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.

### #34wodinoneeye  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:06 PM

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.

### #35Smoothballer  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:42 PM

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."

### #36Kest  Members

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:03 PM

Quote:
Original post by lightbringer
Quote:
 Original post by KazeGame:too many to countFeature: at very start of game long winded fmvComments: 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.

### #37Roots  Members

Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:48 AM

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.

Hero of Allacrost - A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.
Latest release June, 2015 - GameDev annoucement

### #38SunTzu  Members

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:36 AM

Quote:
 Original post by RootsGame: various RPGsFeature: always putting the save points right before a bossComments: 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.

### #39Sneftel  Senior Moderators

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:50 AM

Quote:
 Original post by Rootsnot 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.

### #40Kest  Members

Posted 21 April 2007 - 11:25 AM

Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Quote:
 Original post by Rootsnot 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.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.