Epically weird design choices

[Sonicron]

OK, so here's the deal: "Assassin's Creed: Revelations" is weirding me out.

I've been playing it since yesterday, and for the most part I'm quite happy with it. (Before anyone throws up their hands and starts screaming "PIRATE!!!!", I'm playing a legally acquired copy... the mailman dropped off my pre-order yesterday. A little strange, seeing how the release date is Tuesday, but I won't complain.) As was the case with the previous instalments in the series, Ubisoft basically took what they already had, ironed out a few kinks and added a number of new gimmicks; bonus points for actually improving on the graphics this time around as well.

HOWEVER.
Those of us who've played AC2 and AC:B will know that the manner in which we were presented with character background, webs of intrigue and conspiracies within conspiracies got progressively weirder. I'm all for trying out new things, I really am, but this time around Ubi - in an attempt to not only break the mould, but to annihilate it with sulphuric acid and a steamroller - misstepped in terms of design.

Spoiler: Not a bad spoiler, but if you really don't want to know anything beforehand, keep away.

Desmond is basically locked inside his own head, and by gathering certain collectibles as Ezio, the player gets access to Desmond's memories (presumably up to the point where he gets captured by Abstergo - I don't know, I've only unlocked 3 out of 5 sequences so far). These memories are interactive, in that we control a somewhat disembodied Desmond from the first-person perspective, and you have to navigate some sort of Animus sub-space to get the running narration of his memories. Movement controls are as basic as it gets, and your only crutch for reaching your goal in these increasingly difficult environmental challenges is the ability to spawn two kinds of geometrical objects.
That's right, folks - it's an FP-style physics puzzle platformer. Basically like Portal, only with worse controls, irritating terrain and deprived of all the fun bits. New? Yes. Bold choice? Absolutely. Good? Oh, God no.

So, that concludes my little rant for now. For discussion value:
What are some of the strangest and/or most out-of-place design choices you've ever seen in a game? I'm by no means a gamer of all genres, so I'm interested to hear about any and all experiences - from sports, shooters, adventure, strategy, RPG, or what have you.

 

[random_bars]

The way the first Assassin's Creed turns into a random swordfight-fest at the end was pretty weird.

As was, actually, the way the assassinations turned from awesome freeform, dynamic, fun experiences in the first game - you're given a target and just told "kill this guy and don't get caught" but the way you approach is entirely down to you - with the only flaw being the fact that if you ARE caught it just turns into a swordfight-fest instead of making you retry; into linear series of events where you're told to run along here, now kill these guys, now kill this guy with your throwing knife, etc etc, in every game from 2 onwards.

It's a shame, really, because they improved basically every other aspect of the game but utterly gimped the actual assassinations in the process. But because everyone was too distracted by the aforementioned other improvements, nobody stopped to point out, "hey, weren't the actual assassinations actually really fun before, rather than being kind of shitty like they are now?"

 

[Austin Howe]

Honestly, the entire control scheme of Metal Gear SOlid 4 just felt strange to me . . . at first. As it turns out. Modern cover-based 3PS controls work perfectly for Metal Gear. This is why weird design choices happen. Sometimes they work.

But what didn't work was the Dark World in Prime 2. Hell-running has, besides this, been used ONCE in the entire series, and no one likes that game. It's not a legitimate challenge to have your health constantly draining, and it's not fun, especially with Prime 2's difficulty mostly coming from A)BOSSES IN THE FUCKING DARK WORLD OF ALL UNHOLY THINGS, and B) Sparse placement of teh very important save points. I also find it worth noting here that, I realize your opinion probably differs, but I've never found it to be legitimate difficulty to not be able to basically save states. yes, I realize it's abusable, but, Ninja Gaiden on teh NES, I can make that jump! I just can't make the next one! Yet! Just let me do that one over and over! K?!

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, the control scheme in Twisted Metal: Black is kind of... odd. Let me explain. See, in the game, you can pull of special moves called "Energy Attacks". The strange part is, the developers thought it would be a good idea to pull off these moves like one would pull off a move in a fighting game (this is in a car-combat game mind you). For instance, to place a mine you have to press left, right, then up on the directional pad very quickly. It works about as well as it sounds (re: not very).

 

[Ordinaryundone]

The entire way they did enemies and guard posts in Farcry 2. Vehicles couldn't handle off-road driving to save their lives, so you basically had to stick to the roads. Unfortunately, driving on the roads meant you eventually ran into members of the various militia groups, either driving around themselves or stationed at checkpoints. Seems reasonable so far. Except, no matter what, they would ALWAYS open fire on you, and would chase you too. Meaning that every car trip inevitably was stopped 2 or 3 times as you were forced into a shootout. As the map was very, very large and getting anywhere took time, this got really annoying really fast, especially considering that you could never clear the enemies or outposts away (they just respawned after a while).

Also, since there were two factions in the game fighting each other, you'd think that whoever you were currently working for wouldn't shoot at you. But they do. It was basically you vs. everyone, regardless of what was going on.

 

[Sonicron]

Almost forgot - the same game has another one of these; this one isn't bad, however... just weird.

Remember how you had to reclaim Rome from the Borgias by wandering into a restricted area, killing a captain and setting fire to a tower? Well, that mechanic is back in Revelations, but now they added the reverse scenario of you being forced to defend your assassin dens from incoming hordes of Templar soldiers. Sounds perfectly logical so far, right? Well, in this case 'defending your base' does not mean a few minutes of free-for-all up-close-and-personal mayhem down in the streets... it means playing battle commander and placing various kinds of assassins and obstacles in the street and on the rooftops.
Yes, they actually put a 'tower defense' mechanic into Assassin's Creed. It's not bad, as I said, but it's definitely something I didn't see coming.

 

[MrTwo]

The entire way they did enemies and guard posts in Farcry 2. Vehicles couldn't handle off-road driving to save their lives, so you basically had to stick to the roads. Unfortunately, driving on the roads meant you eventually ran into members of the various militia groups, either driving around themselves or stationed at checkpoints. Seems reasonable so far. Except, no matter what, they would ALWAYS open fire on you, and would chase you too. Meaning that every car trip inevitably was stopped 2 or 3 times as you were forced into a shootout. As the map was very, very large and getting anywhere took time, this got really annoying really fast, especially considering that you could never clear the enemies or outposts away (they just respawned after a while).

Also, since there were two factions in the game fighting each other, you'd think that whoever you were currently working for wouldn't shoot at you. But they do. It was basically you vs. everyone, regardless of what was going on.

This so much. It really killed Farcry 2 for me. I've only done a couple of missions, and now I intend to trade it in. Farcry 3 does look awesome though, so I'm probably going to be getting that. There was the same sort of problem in Red Faction: Guerilla. When you were going into an enemy base to blow up their buildings and rescue hostages etc., almost every time as soon as you shot someone the whole base knew where you were and you either died or pulled out a rocket launcher. This sucked, because some of the guns even lent themselves to stealth. One let you dissolve walls, basically, and I always thought it would be cool to dissolve a wall, sneak in and kill every silently and free the hostages. Instead you free them and then make a dash for a car with bullets all around you. It didn't kill them game, but it would've been more fun for me.

 

[Uncanny Doom]

Killstreaks in Call of Duty.

Why someone thought it would be a good, logical idea to give players already doing well an added advantage is beyond me. Very much of the complaints hardcore Call of Duty fans (which I am not, by the way) had with the franchise stemmed from the fact the multiplayer used killstreaks which encouraged players to be much more cautious, leading to camping, leading to perhaps the most dull multiplayer mechanics I have experienced. It literally makes Call of Duty the only multiplayer game I've touched where it can be boring to be winning and doing well.

 

[targren]

Metroid: Other M. You had to point the Wiimote at the screen to go into "missle mode," reducing your mobility to what they call "dodging" but the real world calls "wobbling around like a drunken woo-girl while the boss shoves energy bolts up your... nose."

Made boss fights "fun." And by "fun," I mean "not fun at all."

 

[RubyT]

linear series of events where you're told to run along here, now kill these guys, now kill this guy with your throwing knife, etc etc, in every game from 2 onwards.

Oh, the casualisation of games. Really pisses me off. These "Press X to do this" mechanics. I always feel like the game is playing me, or like some sort of lab rat.

Quicktime Events are the same thing. I feel like the gals from "Wheel of Fortune", who just waited until the tiles started to glow and then turned them around.

Same with the quest markers. It used to be you were given a GOOD description of what to do and than had to figure it out.

Nowadays, with quests probably being the last thing written on the eleventh hour, you're just given a vague description. "Bring this item to Michael in Springfield." Now obviously, without more information as to a) where is Springfield, b) where is Michael in Springfield and c) how does he look, it would get frustrating to find him.

So we're just given quest markers. I end up running through beautiful Skyrim looking more on the compass than anything else.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Weird design choices?

To me, there's no weirder design choice besides not being able to die.

I think it's very strange that some people seemed bent of reinventing the tired old trope of... dying when you fail. And instead decide to implement a new take on this. And the take of being unkillable is really, really, stupid.

Off the top of my head, both Prey and Bioshock do the same thing. And in both games, it's disappointing and makes it feels like there's no little to no challenge at all or punishment at all. When you remove the ultimate bottom line of death, what's left to threaten you?

One of the "good" examples I can think of that gives an interesting take on death is Hitman. In both Contracts/Blood Money I think, 47 gets plunged into a death state when he loses all his health. The game goes slow-mo for a few seconds, color begins to drown out, at this point you're basically fucked.
-Unless, within these few slow-mo seconds, you manage to shoot down enough goons to give 47 a sort of second wind. He gets a tiny health boost, enough to prevent him from dying, and the game returns to normal.

^I thought that was a pretty cool way to spin the concept of dying. You have a very narrow window to prevent death, and only within a circumstance that may not always be available when you die, and it only saves you once by giving you a tiny bit of health, and if you get shot too much again-You'll die with no second chances.

Prey and Bioshock however, turn a pretty engrossing experience into an immersion-shattering-hand-holding-baby-simulator. A design choice that falls within the absolute lowest-point of each game.

I'm glad this design choice is by no means popular though. Good.

 

[random_bars]

Weird design choices?

To me, there's no weirder design choice besides not being able to die.

I think it's very strange that some people seemed bent of reinventing the tired old trope of... dying when you fail. And instead decide to implement a new take on this. And the take of being unkillable is really, really, stupid.

Off the top of my head, both Prey and Bioshock do the same thing. And in both games, it's disappointing and makes it feels like there's no little to no challenge at all or punishment at all. When you remove the ultimate bottom line of death, what's left to threaten you?

One of the "good" examples I can think of that gives an interesting take on death is Hitman. In both Contracts/Blood Money I think, 47 gets plunged into a death state when he loses all his health. The game goes slow-mo for a few seconds, color begins to drown out, at this point you're basically fucked.
-Unless, within these few slow-mo seconds, you manage to shoot down enough goons to give 47 a sort of second wind. He gets a tiny health boost, enough to prevent him from dying, and the game returns to normal.

^I thought that was a pretty cool way to spin the concept of dying. You have a very narrow window to prevent death, and only within a circumstance that may not always be available when you die, and it only saves you once by giving you a tiny bit of health, and if you get shot too much again-You'll die with no second chances.

Prey and Bioshock however, turn a pretty engrossing experience into an immersion-shattering-hand-holding-baby-simulator. A design choice that falls within the absolute lowest-point of each game.

I'm glad this design choice is by no means popular though. Good.

I can kind of see the idea behind it, and understand why it seems a much neater way of doing things to make the player's playthrough all 'canon' and not just pretend the bits where they did badly didn't happen. But yeah, the way it's done in Bioshock (haven't played Prey, so I don't know about that one) is pretty terrible.