Game design choices that should be outlawed

[Rayne870]

Character creation systems that only let you see your character from a few strict angles so that you can't see if they look any good. I'm looking at YOU, Mass Effect.

As much as I love ME my biggest issue is that all the femsheps look the same because most of the face options really suck. Malesheps on the other hand tend to have a lot more variety.

@Jovip, try firing a rusty rpg in farcry 2 when you really really need it to not spiral at your feet and explode, actually I loled at it when it happened to me. But yeah degrading weapons kinda sucks.

 

[TK421]

not being able to skip cut-scenes.

not being able to skip credits.

games that give you only one save slot (mainly ds games guilty of this)

a cluster fuck of of an inventory system.

These things irk me to no end. I HATE unskippible cutscenes. Unskippible credits are annoying too, but aren't as bad because you can just leave and do something else till they're done.

Also, Fuck this shit.---v

Multiplayer maps that do not fulfill these criteria:
-Spawn Timers are needed as well, so as to make teammates spawn together, giving a cooperative opportunity, rather than reinforcing individualistic tactics.

I agree with the rest of your stuff, but waiting to spawn just pisses me off.

 

[timeadept]

Having collectibles, especially items that matter, (like say the dijinn in golden sun dark dawn) in areas that once you leave you can never return to. Or in say an adventure game, put those same collectibles near the end of levels or near the end of a section of the level so that you have to redo the entire level if you accidently go too far and miss them. (actually it's not so bad if it is very clear that the level is about to end or you're about to pass a point of no return in the level.

 

[moretimethansense]

I take it you are a rage quitter that pulls the cord everytime you're about to lose then?
If you quit of course it should count as a loss, you gave up!

Or possibly because I'm halfway done an hour-long mission and I immediately have to leave. Sure I can leave my computer on for 6 hours while I go do whatever I'm supposed to do, or maybe the game could be courteous enough to allow me to save and quit?

Ah, in a single player game I can see how it'd be annoying.

Honestly you guys saying that if you quit it should be counted against you are ignoring what he's saying, I mean it's totally legitimate to not want to have a big fat YOU LOSE when you have to do something quickly.

I also abuse saves tho

In the case of single player I'd agree, but I still say that it should absolutly count against you in multi.
Think abouty it, if a sports team is unable to play they forfeit, When I'm playing chess whenever I'm forced to end a match early I am the one that consedes defeat.
It's completly unfair to your opponant to leave in the middle of a match and have the entire thing simply not count, they put in effort to play, their endevour would be the one wasted and in the end if you have to leave for legitimate reasons, why should your opponant that was willing to play to the end be penalized for it?

 

[Cogwheel]

Your character has amnesia.

Lazy!

I don't suppose you've played Planescape: Torment?

Nah. I was going to, but the outdated UI and general graphics hit me like a brick wall.

...Ow.

Your loss.

Mmm. Does suck; I've heard it's a fun game. But design that old and graphics that iconic of the 90's grind on me pretty hard.

Funnily enough, it was okay when I played Diablo II.

Strange. And honestly, I quite liked how PS:T looked. The UI is bad, certainly, but it never stopped me. Guess I just have lower standards.

I dunno if I'd say it's standards, so much as taste.

I'll have to look at the game again. I know it's hella cheap on GoG, don't know about Steam.

I'm afraid it's not on Steam. GoG's a good choice, though.

 

[timeadept]

- Choosing to count a game as a loss against you when you quit a skirmish match.

I take it you are a rage quitter that pulls the cord everytime you're about to lose then?
If you quit of course it should count as a loss, you gave up!

OT:
Giving me the option to save anywhere, I always end up abusing it.

Not necessarily. I think he's talking about leaving the match while it's still early. You know, before anyone can gain a clear advantage. It annoys the hell out of me when it does this to me. Especially because i tend to start the match and then realize... you know? i really don't want to play any more.

 

[herpaderphurr]

Gun Wank

Yes, I know, but this sort of thing occurs in every aspect of media. Car enthusiasts might say that this movie car chase is unrealistic, history enthusiasts might say that this game is historically inaccurate.

Learn to deal with it, otherwise you'll have every movie and game ruined because you'll go "Fifteen shots from a 1911? What bullshit!" every five minutes...

Also, which Battlefield games in particular are you referring to?

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Honestly you guys saying that if you quit it should be counted against you are ignoring what he's saying, I mean it's totally legitimate to not want to have a big fat YOU LOSE when you have to do something quickly.

I also abuse saves tho

In the case of single player I'd agree, but I still say that it should absolutly count against you in multi.
Think abouty it, if a sports team is unable to play they forfeit, When I'm playing chess whenever I'm forced to end a match early I am the one that consedes defeat.
It's completly unfair to your opponant to leave in the middle of a match and have the entire thing simply not count, they put in effort to play, their endevour would be the one wasted and in the end if you have to leave for legitimate reasons, why should your opponant that was willing to play to the end be penalized for it?

Yeah, I was honestly addressing more the fact that they epically ignored him then the specifics of what he said. I think he's right overall, there should probably just be conditions. Like say he's losing by a few kills and he leaves, that should count against him, but say he joins a fight and leaves 4 seconds later, that shouldn't. It'd be more specific but I think both parties have valid arguments in this situation.

Oh, also if this were implemented we obviously couldn't count it the other way, in that if a player leaves while ahead, it's an instant win.

 

[moretimethansense]

Not necessarily. I think he's talking about leaving the match while it's still early. You know, before anyone can gain a clear advantage. It annoys the hell out of me when it does this to me. Especially because i tend to start the match and then realize... you know? i really don't want to play any more.

I'd already said something to this effect but, think about your opponant, they wanted a game, they were willing to play to the end, cutting out, even early, is bad form.
Fine you don't want to play any more, accept your loss then, if your record means so much to you then fight for it.
More than a few times I've been playing a game, then suddenly half the team up and quits, or worse my opponant leaves, I was ready to play, you were the one that abandoned the match, imagine if sports worked that way, "Despite being 5-0 this mach ended in a draw when the losing team decided they'd had enough.
Frankly I find the idea somewhat selfish, but then I'm a sportsman when it comes to games.

 

[herpaderphurr]

Having arbitrary time limits for things which... might logically deserve one, but it really does detract from the gameplay experience.

For example, having a set amount of time to answer EVERY SINGLE PHONEBOOTH in the early GTA games, the time limits for every single new task in Dead Rising 2, the 500-day limit in Fallout 1.

 

[Stammer]

In the case of single player I'd agree, but I still say that it should absolutly count against you in multi.
Think abouty it, if a sports team is unable to play they forfeit, When I'm playing chess whenever I'm forced to end a match early I am the one that consedes defeat.
It's completly unfair to your opponant to leave in the middle of a match and have the entire thing simply not count, they put in effort to play, their endevour would be the one wasted and in the end if you have to leave for legitimate reasons, why should your opponant that was willing to play to the end be penalized for it?

Absolutely. No, I totally agree with it penalizing you for quitting in an online match. I'm fine with the fact that most games in online matches will simply replace the "Quit" button with a "Surrender" button. I actually have had to leave spontaneously in multiplayer matches, but I don't really feel bad that it counts as a loss because there's another side to the event: the opponent player.

Besides, if you ever wanted to ragequit in an online match you could always pull your internet cord, haha!

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

not having the original Japanese voice acting available in Japanese

Sing it brotha.

This, along with other languages if it was recorded that way.

Also, cazadors.

 

[godfist88]

Infinitely respawning enemies.

It doesn't make sense on any level, and it's about as unfun as it gets.

this, whats the point of killing them if they just keep coming back?

 

[timeadept]

Removing player control in a first person game. First person implies that the player is the character, third implies that they are watching and empathising with the character. What this means is that in a first person game it's horribly jarring if there character does something the player wouldn't do or want them to do. This is typically expressed through dialogue, especially dialogue that prompts character interaction.

I want to expand on this, to include removing the players control when something important is happening. You all probably remember a cutscene when you totally could have done better but your avatar does something incredibly stupid or makes a newb mistake. (actually this may be where those quick time events stemmed from so lets tread lightly). Maybe this'll help explain the kind of scenario i'm referring to. You just finished handing a recurring villain his ass only to have some of his lackies show up that normally wouldn't be difficult to handle but for whatever reason, they capture you or let the villain escape, or if they're feeling really nasty, they prevent you from stopping the villain's escape AND THEN you have to fight them (and win). Like you couldn't do that while your half dead nemesis was right in front of you.

 

[omicron1]

Awkward PC menu controls.

Guys? We in PC land have this thing called a mouse. It's used for clicking buttons - especially buttons in the interface, as might be found in your main menu. When you fail to implement things as simple as mouse support, mix key commands and buttons into this giant mixed-up interface slurry, or (heaven forbid) limit the clickable area of a button to the pixels covered by the button text, I have a problem with it. And if I have a problem, you have a problem. You have no excuse; the APIs are right there in the basic Windows system code; you can get the state of the mouse buttons and the x and y coordinates of the cursor with a few short lines of code. Hack something together, I don't care; but don't just leave us hanging!

And for an ingame design decision: Leave off with the try-and-repeat boss battles/minigames! I'm looking at you, Sly Cooper. If I see one more bomb-carrying chicken or inexplicably computer-hungry fire slug, I swear I'm going to find your makers and slap the daylights out of them.

Don't make incredibly short time limits (or time limits at all; I find them very annoying at the best of times); don't build any part of your gameplay around frustration rather than fun; and don't make me restart a three-part boss battle from the beginning just because I missed ONE BUTTON PRESS!

/rant

 

[moretimethansense]

Honestly you guys saying that if you quit it should be counted against you are ignoring what he's saying, I mean it's totally legitimate to not want to have a big fat YOU LOSE when you have to do something quickly.

I also abuse saves tho

In the case of single player I'd agree, but I still say that it should absolutly count against you in multi.
Think abouty it, if a sports team is unable to play they forfeit, When I'm playing chess whenever I'm forced to end a match early I am the one that consedes defeat.
It's completly unfair to your opponant to leave in the middle of a match and have the entire thing simply not count, they put in effort to play, their endevour would be the one wasted and in the end if you have to leave for legitimate reasons, why should your opponant that was willing to play to the end be penalized for it?

Yeah, I was honestly addressing more the fact that they epically ignored him then the specifics of what he said. I think he's right overall, there should probably just be conditions. Like say he's losing by a few kills and he leaves, that should count against him, but say he joins a fight and leaves 4 seconds later, that shouldn't. It'd be more specific but I think both parties have valid arguments in this situation.

Oh, also if this were implemented we obviously couldn't count it the other way, in that if a player leaves while ahead, it's an instant win.

That could be one way, but it would have to vary by game, L4D for example there are quite a few folk that quit the moment the game starts if they aren't Infected, or worse keep playing but kill themselves in the starting room when playing survivors.
Alternitivly quitting on a game if the opponent is using a charecter/race they don't like playing against(I've been guilty of this one, my freind is absolutly brutal as Tau in DoW 40K).

I hate people like that, I don't mean to say that every game is srs bsns but a degree of sportsmanship should be in order.

Though I'd agreee with the idea that if no points have been made quitting shouldn't be a loss.

On the save issue, why don't they implement something like a temporary save, when you want to quit it saves and uits without affecting your record, then deletes when you load?
It worked for Shenmue well enough.

 

[Stammer]

I think he's right overall, there should probably just be conditions. Like say he's losing by a few kills and he leaves, that should count against him, but say he joins a fight and leaves 4 seconds later, that shouldn't. It'd be more specific but I think both parties have valid arguments in this situation.

Oh, also if this were implemented we obviously couldn't count it the other way, in that if a player leaves while ahead, it's an instant win.

Actually, I think Red Alert 3 would be perfect for this kind of design idea. When your opponent is laying down a hammer of destruction upon you, your Threat Meter increases. The meter has other effects on the game, but what they could do is they could say "If the person quits when his Threat Meter is at X-percent, it's likely he quit because he's losing".

You could also have a system implemented in the game for multiplayer where both players could agree to a stalemate in the event that one of them has to leave. In fact, you could even do it secretly, like the opponent has 30 seconds after you quit to decide if you quit because you lost or if you quit for another reason. Same could be done for disconnects.

 

[LittleJP]

Hollywood silencer sound effects
QTE
unskippable intros and cutscenes.

The list goes on.

 

[Ninjat_126]

Unskippable cutscenes. And unpausable cutscenes most of all.

MGS4 may have been 60% cutscene, but it at least gave me the option to pause and skip them at any time. Jak 3 on PS2 had a pause button for cutscenes. What's stopping people?



Also, I'd like to see difficulty levels that do something other than just boost/reduce health/damage. How about one where different enemies spawn depending on the difficulty, like I don't know, the original Doom? Or maybe make them smarter and more inclined to use BFGs and grenades?