Engage the evil wizard in a magical duel on some astral plane, and then, when his mind is destroyed, waltz in and take the gem.The Irrelevant Gamer said:
Game mechanics you hate
- Thread starter The Irrelevant Gamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Regarding the whole "single sword blow cuts opponent in two" thing. I unreservedly recommend PS1 cult classic Bushido Blade for anyone who wants to try this out. It's a fighting game not an RPG, but the weapons do... fairly realistic stuff! Don't assume this means huge swords rule the game, though. Yes, they cut people in half every time, but they're realistically heavy too and it's not going to end well if your opponent evades your ponderous swing then closes in with a faster weapon.
Oh god, where to start?
I think the number one thing that annoys me is what I've come to think of as "guess what the developer was thinking". It's kind of nebulous to describe, the bottom line is there are frequently environmental puzzles and level limits that aren't particularly intuitive, the solution to which the developer thought was obvious. For example, there was a section in "the Darkness" which was a completely wide open space. You could walk in any direction you wish, find enemies and landmarks, but eventually you'd hit the level limits and be teleported back to a starting spot. I probably did that for a good 45 min. Pick a direction and explore in it, only to get warped back. Finally I hopped on the internet if only to find out that I was supposed to know to talk to the guy on the crucifix. I know this is supposed to be a representation of hell, but frankly, it never would have occurred to me that someone who'd been crucified would be interested in a casual conversation. Probably the most extreme example I can think of "guess what the developer was thinking"; would be back from my college days. There was a version of the X-men for the Genesis. It was a side scrolling shooter. About four or five levels in I think, there was a confrontation, which when completed, got me stuck every time. I was stuck on it for MONTHS before I finally figured out that I was somehow supposed to know to actually physically hit the reset button on the console. (I never had before, when I got frustrated I would usually turn it off.)
Number two would be little inconsistencies. Darkness was bad about that too. There was a section where I could not reach up and grab/climb a step ladder that was a foot in front of my face, but instead I was supposed to somehow figure out that I was supposed to walk on an air conditioning duct that somehow wraps itself around the side of the building. Does AC even do that? I just finished Timeshift, and I actually did enjoy Timeshift, but it had its fair share of inconsistencies too. The helicopters ticked me off. I'm well aware that there are armored helicopters out there, but these things could take a good six or seven rocket launcher hits without going down. There are moments in Timeshift where the environmental puzzles get annoying. You see, apparently you can manipulate the time stream, but you can't reach out and pull yourself up on a ledge that's two feet in front of you. Nah, that's much too easy, you have to solve 3 or 4 mild environmental puzzles to get to that ledge.
I actually don't mind the God of War - simon-esque style button sequences as long as they're not too hard to do. The ones I don't like are the "hit the button as fast as you can" portions. I think that's why I liked Heavenly Sword a tad more then God of War. In Heavenly Sword - the cool one hit kills weren't achieved by mashing one button as fast as you can. Pull off combos and a meter builds, when the meter fills up, line up the target and hit O. I found that style allot more fun. For more part, I basically don't play the fighting games. Street Fighter's descendants. It isn't that I don't think they're cool - I just can't stand the control scheme. The moves and mechanics have taken the quarter-turn hadoken stuff from the street fighter days and made them so horribly convoluted that you can't really get much of anywhere without extensive study. I don't think I've played a fighter since my college days. (going on 10 years now)
I think the number one thing that annoys me is what I've come to think of as "guess what the developer was thinking". It's kind of nebulous to describe, the bottom line is there are frequently environmental puzzles and level limits that aren't particularly intuitive, the solution to which the developer thought was obvious. For example, there was a section in "the Darkness" which was a completely wide open space. You could walk in any direction you wish, find enemies and landmarks, but eventually you'd hit the level limits and be teleported back to a starting spot. I probably did that for a good 45 min. Pick a direction and explore in it, only to get warped back. Finally I hopped on the internet if only to find out that I was supposed to know to talk to the guy on the crucifix. I know this is supposed to be a representation of hell, but frankly, it never would have occurred to me that someone who'd been crucified would be interested in a casual conversation. Probably the most extreme example I can think of "guess what the developer was thinking"; would be back from my college days. There was a version of the X-men for the Genesis. It was a side scrolling shooter. About four or five levels in I think, there was a confrontation, which when completed, got me stuck every time. I was stuck on it for MONTHS before I finally figured out that I was somehow supposed to know to actually physically hit the reset button on the console. (I never had before, when I got frustrated I would usually turn it off.)
Number two would be little inconsistencies. Darkness was bad about that too. There was a section where I could not reach up and grab/climb a step ladder that was a foot in front of my face, but instead I was supposed to somehow figure out that I was supposed to walk on an air conditioning duct that somehow wraps itself around the side of the building. Does AC even do that? I just finished Timeshift, and I actually did enjoy Timeshift, but it had its fair share of inconsistencies too. The helicopters ticked me off. I'm well aware that there are armored helicopters out there, but these things could take a good six or seven rocket launcher hits without going down. There are moments in Timeshift where the environmental puzzles get annoying. You see, apparently you can manipulate the time stream, but you can't reach out and pull yourself up on a ledge that's two feet in front of you. Nah, that's much too easy, you have to solve 3 or 4 mild environmental puzzles to get to that ledge.
I actually don't mind the God of War - simon-esque style button sequences as long as they're not too hard to do. The ones I don't like are the "hit the button as fast as you can" portions. I think that's why I liked Heavenly Sword a tad more then God of War. In Heavenly Sword - the cool one hit kills weren't achieved by mashing one button as fast as you can. Pull off combos and a meter builds, when the meter fills up, line up the target and hit O. I found that style allot more fun. For more part, I basically don't play the fighting games. Street Fighter's descendants. It isn't that I don't think they're cool - I just can't stand the control scheme. The moves and mechanics have taken the quarter-turn hadoken stuff from the street fighter days and made them so horribly convoluted that you can't really get much of anywhere without extensive study. I don't think I've played a fighter since my college days. (going on 10 years now)
Closest thing to this I've ever seen was the old Mega Drive (Genesis) game Rings of Power. It's an old non-linear RPG where combat was done on another plane of existence (it looked like a massive square slab of concrete floating in space) after which you would return to where you were.GloatingSwine said:
Also in reguards to needing stats/levels to give progression - you don't need it. STALKER pulled off RPG elements without the need for character levels pretty well. All the progression comes from the equipment you get the further you go, and you, the player, as you get better at the game.
Hit rolls...I have to say these only work for me in RPG combat where the character is static in a way that you cannot control the finer points of combat (eg. attack is just a menu command). In this case it's the only way the game can really make any variation in combat. If you have more control of your characters then having a hit roll is just an annoyance - if you're moving the characters around and attacking in real time then the source of variation is your control. If you're in the right place you'll hit, if not, you'll miss.
I'd have to say that my biggest gripe with game mechanics is that the back end has never really advanced very far. In RTS the pathfinding still largely sucks and individual units are still stupid unless constantly managed. In FPS we get games with hyped up 'awesome AI' that means the enemy will run straight at you everytime (here's looking at you, Oblivion) or exhibit general stupidity (Crysis demo - shoot at the water and watch as the nearby bad guys pay close attention to the splashes).
Oh yes, I almost forgot. AI that are unrealistically eagle eyed/sharp eared/generally over aware and telepathic guards are particularly annoying. Especially in stealth games.
PS. a n00b to the forum says hi
Square map grids.
Okay, I'll forgive them in Advance Wars, because it's just so darned cute. And quick. Just like I forgive them my other peeve, symmetric units, "See, my mechanized infantry unit is red, not blue. Totally different."
But Field Commander on the PSP actually tries to make itself look something like a real wargame. And still uses a rectangular map grid. So I find myself annoyed with it.
I'm also not fond of in-scenario unit creation mechanics at the operational scale. If I need to secure a port, or an airstrip, or a landing zone, to bring in reinforcements, great, but onsite, in-scenario creation, not so much.
Note that these complaints do not apply to grand strategic scale games, where they're entirely appropriate.
But now we have Warhammer 40k Squad Command for the PSP. Mmmm...turn based tactical scale miniature goodness. Though it doesn't use miniature dead-reckoning movement, which would be even more aces, it does appear to be hex based, if not something finer and more abstract.
I'm not sure about fidelity to the tabletop rules, but it does everything that I want in a computer based wargame I want it to be small, I want it to be fast, and I want it to store all the pieces and the map, and take care of all the rules bookkeeping for me. How faithful it is to the tabletop rules, I have no idea. But it certainly looks pretty, and that's 80% of WH, innit?
Okay, I'll forgive them in Advance Wars, because it's just so darned cute. And quick. Just like I forgive them my other peeve, symmetric units, "See, my mechanized infantry unit is red, not blue. Totally different."
But Field Commander on the PSP actually tries to make itself look something like a real wargame. And still uses a rectangular map grid. So I find myself annoyed with it.
I'm also not fond of in-scenario unit creation mechanics at the operational scale. If I need to secure a port, or an airstrip, or a landing zone, to bring in reinforcements, great, but onsite, in-scenario creation, not so much.
Note that these complaints do not apply to grand strategic scale games, where they're entirely appropriate.
But now we have Warhammer 40k Squad Command for the PSP. Mmmm...turn based tactical scale miniature goodness. Though it doesn't use miniature dead-reckoning movement, which would be even more aces, it does appear to be hex based, if not something finer and more abstract.
I'm not sure about fidelity to the tabletop rules, but it does everything that I want in a computer based wargame I want it to be small, I want it to be fast, and I want it to store all the pieces and the map, and take care of all the rules bookkeeping for me. How faithful it is to the tabletop rules, I have no idea. But it certainly looks pretty, and that's 80% of WH, innit?
this isnt a game mechanic, but i cant play movie games. usually cuz evrything about them is cheap. especially the floaty physics, like for jumping. floaty jumping bugs me.
With regard to melee combat I think Bushido Blade one and two are perfect. You never feel that your enemy is more powerful. It has a lot to do with strategy and timing but unless I'm mistaken, thats what melee combat is, right?
My least favorite type of game mechanics are protection missions, anything where you are assigned to protect something or somebody else, because something always happens to throw a few duffle-bags of wrenches in the works, It's very seldom I'm able to complete such missions on the first three tries. A situation like this is in Company of Heroes there is a part where you need to protect the square from the advancing Nazis over 3-4 bridges. What they don't tell you is that about two minutes before the timer runs out, the Nazis will bomb the everloving !@#$ out of everything in a 50m radius of the bridges killing all of your units and defensive structures before the Nazis rush in and pummel you with machine gun fire. I hate that, it's like they want you to fail the first time.
It's like that god awful stage in Megaman 5 where you're on a jet-ski and you have to memorize the whole level to beat it, all the while dying every 16 feet to instant kill traps and holes.
My least favorite type of game mechanics are protection missions, anything where you are assigned to protect something or somebody else, because something always happens to throw a few duffle-bags of wrenches in the works, It's very seldom I'm able to complete such missions on the first three tries. A situation like this is in Company of Heroes there is a part where you need to protect the square from the advancing Nazis over 3-4 bridges. What they don't tell you is that about two minutes before the timer runs out, the Nazis will bomb the everloving !@#$ out of everything in a 50m radius of the bridges killing all of your units and defensive structures before the Nazis rush in and pummel you with machine gun fire. I hate that, it's like they want you to fail the first time.
It's like that god awful stage in Megaman 5 where you're on a jet-ski and you have to memorize the whole level to beat it, all the while dying every 16 feet to instant kill traps and holes.
I think it's usually designed so that you succeed by the skin of your teeth, and when the inevitable reinforcement or evacuation or whatever-it-was-you-were-waiting-for happens you're really glad that you hung on through epic odds.Do4600 said:
Of course, if they haven't quite timed the big push right, or haven't balanced the preceding waves to encourage you to build just enough defences to delay it for long enough then yes, you fail first time and get annoyed.
It's not the mechanic that's wrong, but that it does need to be carefully balanced in order to work fluently.
In all fairness, in terms of strategy games, that sort of thing happens to field commanders. You can't expect the axis to telegraph you and let you know in advance when artillery is coming in. That said, I've totally fallen for it to, and I've been annoyed by it and it's non-strategy counterparts too. I wouldn't call it a design failure, so much as a bump in the road because they're trying to be unpredictable. Makes me think of the original aliens versus predator. Most games milk the suspense when the motion sensor goes off, but they do eventually attack you. AvP1, to this day, I'm still not 100% certain that sensor doesn't go off just to screw with your head.Do4600 said:
What annoys me the most about those kinds of nasty little surprises are the ones where it's painfully obvious that no preparation of any kind could've helped you/saved you from them. Those are irritating.
Timers. It isnt always badly done, but it's one of those things that designers easily screw up. Just like those protect missions.
Wrong branch of the IF. I want the physics engine to apply to character animation.Ranzel said:
That is the distinction between character skill and player skill right there. Having what you see disagree with what happens is BAD. What we should be seeing is a click-to-attack (or hold-click-to-attack since we're going to be here for a couple of minutes and 50 clicks to kill one enemy is not good) where the player decides that an attack is needed and the character decides the optimum maneouvre and then proceeds to execute it.The Irrelevant Gamer said:
Supposedly Oblivions enemies would recognize when you were repeating a swing and get better at blocking it but that's not something I noticed.
The fundamental problem is that classes are EEEVIL. They kinda-sorta make a bit of sense in wargaming and that's where D&D originally stole them from but they are a simplification that we can do without (a bit like hit points, except we're yet to see a better replacement for HP). If your rogue just takes Sneaking and Security (the only two actual rogue skills) you are going to die horribly, a lot. You take some Light Armour, Blade and Illusion and your survivability improves no end.The Irrelevant Gamer said:
I finished the main quest as a rogue (though not an archer because they nerfed marksmanship too much) because I needed the 6x backstab damage. I actually found it easier than going in as a fighter since closing Oblivion gates was very boring by that point so I'd stealth up and head straight for the top of the tower, ignoring all the dremora standing around, staring into space.
If that's the mission I'm thinking of it IS mentioned in the briefing, very, very briefly. And, at least in the version I played, you are told to pull back to the square because the bombing is about to commence.Do4600 said:
That's an art thing. SupCom and TA build them from scratch on the field (ditto Zerg). DoW has them being dropped from orbit/emerging from the warp (ditto Protoss). SpellForce has them being cast from "runes". It makes no sense for something like CoH, WC or C&C BUT they are just copying what went before. In the original WarCraft each figure was supposed to represent an entire unit of troops and your base was a village where all of the non-strategically-important cruft just wasn't rendered (townsfolk, wells, fields, ...).Saskwach said:
I notice this thread has a certain bias toward the failings of RPGs, so I intend to point out my favorite things to hate in FPS games in no particular order. ^^
1, Surprise-I'm-the-Terminator bad guys.
When a regular noname grunt can take 30 rounds to the chest with no armour and keep comming, it just destroys any sense of immersion in any game. Crysis is the current record holder for this particular annoyance. After the beautiful opening movies, the increadible parachute jump and the very satisfying sneak to get to the first bad guy in the game I hear my boss tell me to take him out quietly. So I make sure my silencer is on the gun, aim for his heart and deliver 5 small pieces of metal moving at about 300m/s (judging by sound) to the center of his chest. I expect him to just drop like an empty suit as a good 80% of his blood is removed from his body in a fraction of a second and his heart and lungs are reduced to swiss cheese. But imagine my surprise when he screams to his friends and starts shooting back. Needless to say this particular method of balancing the game just pisses me of. If a game is trying to be realistic and make you suspend disbelief then things should react as expected.
2, Artificial level limits. Of the stupid variety.
I do not think I can count how many times I have heard something like "Get back in the war soldier! (insert timer here)" when I still well within range of the bad guys. After seeing so many games pull of well designed levels which give you all the options you need to deal with a problem. Running into an invisible wall or hearing some REMF call you over the radio to tell you something like that is simply annoying. It just feels like the developers where lazy and coulden't be botherd with considering any other options than simple run and gun, CS style play.
3, In your face physics puzzles. I'm looking at you Valve.
In my entire life I have never ever had to make a seesaw out of a board and some rocks to get somewhere, and I have been in some really wierd places in my life. This sort of thing just reeks of time filler to make you think you have gotten your moneys worth in a game when in fact you are simply spending time thinking the devs are cool because they can do something that is "new" and "original".
End of first rant.
1, Surprise-I'm-the-Terminator bad guys.
When a regular noname grunt can take 30 rounds to the chest with no armour and keep comming, it just destroys any sense of immersion in any game. Crysis is the current record holder for this particular annoyance. After the beautiful opening movies, the increadible parachute jump and the very satisfying sneak to get to the first bad guy in the game I hear my boss tell me to take him out quietly. So I make sure my silencer is on the gun, aim for his heart and deliver 5 small pieces of metal moving at about 300m/s (judging by sound) to the center of his chest. I expect him to just drop like an empty suit as a good 80% of his blood is removed from his body in a fraction of a second and his heart and lungs are reduced to swiss cheese. But imagine my surprise when he screams to his friends and starts shooting back. Needless to say this particular method of balancing the game just pisses me of. If a game is trying to be realistic and make you suspend disbelief then things should react as expected.
2, Artificial level limits. Of the stupid variety.
I do not think I can count how many times I have heard something like "Get back in the war soldier! (insert timer here)" when I still well within range of the bad guys. After seeing so many games pull of well designed levels which give you all the options you need to deal with a problem. Running into an invisible wall or hearing some REMF call you over the radio to tell you something like that is simply annoying. It just feels like the developers where lazy and coulden't be botherd with considering any other options than simple run and gun, CS style play.
3, In your face physics puzzles. I'm looking at you Valve.
In my entire life I have never ever had to make a seesaw out of a board and some rocks to get somewhere, and I have been in some really wierd places in my life. This sort of thing just reeks of time filler to make you think you have gotten your moneys worth in a game when in fact you are simply spending time thinking the devs are cool because they can do something that is "new" and "original".
End of first rant.
Giving too much hints towards the solutions of puzzles. I mean the last zelda game on the DS (hourglass). It almost rubs the solution of the puzzles in your face in the form of the pixie telling you all kinds of stuff.
FPS, I hate when they ask you to defend somewhere against a mass attack like in CoD4, its almost impossible past medium difficult without using some sort of shortcut/hiding etc.
the invicible allie, those invicible allies like hl2 alyx and cod4 your squad leaders, they always shout for help i ignore them compelete as they are invicible ive watch alyx take down 20+ ant lions, same with your squad leader in COD4, he just stood there and took about 3 grenade and 100s of bullet while i sat back watching him solo the place slowly.
you seem to be the only enemy they computer see yet there about 20 allies behind you, this is painfully noticeable in CoD and MoH games.
i can magicly regenerate health and get back up after being shout X times, its not much better than a medpack health kit etc lying around but atleast it gave you goal to get through an area without dying rather than taking shot after shot and waiting in cover till your nice and healthy again gah it annoys me so.
MMO/RPG, where they ask you go kill X creature get X number of body part, suddenly you notice a lot of creatures seem to lack a brain/spine/hands/eye etc
how someone of the same race can be about 3 timse your size what they hell does a person eat to get this big compare to everyone else. eg, Tempest keep in World of Warcraft how come prince keal'thas is so big yet is just a special blood elf.
the invicible allie, those invicible allies like hl2 alyx and cod4 your squad leaders, they always shout for help i ignore them compelete as they are invicible ive watch alyx take down 20+ ant lions, same with your squad leader in COD4, he just stood there and took about 3 grenade and 100s of bullet while i sat back watching him solo the place slowly.
you seem to be the only enemy they computer see yet there about 20 allies behind you, this is painfully noticeable in CoD and MoH games.
i can magicly regenerate health and get back up after being shout X times, its not much better than a medpack health kit etc lying around but atleast it gave you goal to get through an area without dying rather than taking shot after shot and waiting in cover till your nice and healthy again gah it annoys me so.
MMO/RPG, where they ask you go kill X creature get X number of body part, suddenly you notice a lot of creatures seem to lack a brain/spine/hands/eye etc
how someone of the same race can be about 3 timse your size what they hell does a person eat to get this big compare to everyone else. eg, Tempest keep in World of Warcraft how come prince keal'thas is so big yet is just a special blood elf.
Agreed. Artificial Level limits are a nuisance. Why render the rest of the normandy beach if I can't get to it.MrCIA said:
Valve talked about this in the audio commentary in Team Fortress 2.
What's worse, are games like doom and jericho in which the game is just corridor after corridor and they all start looking the same, and boring. Albiet the same hall looks really pretty, its still just the same hall.
1. The hitbox system; it's not such a problem anymore, but it was for about a decade or so and it has a legacy. Today the problem manifests itself in character model based hit meshes that almost always make everything take the same damage except for the head. Short of a flak jacket, or heavy armor, a chest shot should severely wound if not kill a unit.
2. Sword/knife play that revolves around hitting a fast attack button and a slow attack button, or simply an attack button. By now procedural animations should have evolved to the point where a character can wing a sword the direction the mouse moves (with the left mouse button held down) with a rare few exceptions. Creating an animation is simpler and less time consuming, for just one animation, making left, right, top, uppercut and other various swings is actually profitable to be done procedurally with code. I thought Red Steel might accomplish this on the Wii, but it ended up being another sub par attack button game. To block or parry you have to move your sword in the way of your opponents and yet not leave yourself open, whereas in games you simply hold the block button till your block is broken by a heavy swing. For example, in the Prince of Persia games, blocking is displayed as a crouch with the sword held at an angle from the Prince's face, everything but his face is completely vulnerable as far as logic goes, but it becomes more like a temporary invulnerability skill than anything.
3. Turn based combat, I shoot you and then you shoot me, this is just pointless crap that some call "strategy", which I call getting the right combination and winning almost every battle (Yes KOTOR, I'm staring at you and yes I want to stab you with my lightsaber) just by qeuing the best attack and occasionally healing. It looks ridiculous as well and makes little sense except to cater to "traditionalist" RPG players who call anything else "twitch" gaming because they can't get a cup of cofee between attacks without pausing the game manually.
4. Health points... Deus Ex almost blew away health points all together with their health per body section display, but now, all these years later, we're still relying on a health meter to tell us if we're in fighting condition. Shooting someone in the finger will eventually drain someone's health points to 0 in a game, rather than destroy the finger and it's function like it would in real life. I simply find this system overly basic and annoying, particularly when we know that we can do better.
2. Sword/knife play that revolves around hitting a fast attack button and a slow attack button, or simply an attack button. By now procedural animations should have evolved to the point where a character can wing a sword the direction the mouse moves (with the left mouse button held down) with a rare few exceptions. Creating an animation is simpler and less time consuming, for just one animation, making left, right, top, uppercut and other various swings is actually profitable to be done procedurally with code. I thought Red Steel might accomplish this on the Wii, but it ended up being another sub par attack button game. To block or parry you have to move your sword in the way of your opponents and yet not leave yourself open, whereas in games you simply hold the block button till your block is broken by a heavy swing. For example, in the Prince of Persia games, blocking is displayed as a crouch with the sword held at an angle from the Prince's face, everything but his face is completely vulnerable as far as logic goes, but it becomes more like a temporary invulnerability skill than anything.
3. Turn based combat, I shoot you and then you shoot me, this is just pointless crap that some call "strategy", which I call getting the right combination and winning almost every battle (Yes KOTOR, I'm staring at you and yes I want to stab you with my lightsaber) just by qeuing the best attack and occasionally healing. It looks ridiculous as well and makes little sense except to cater to "traditionalist" RPG players who call anything else "twitch" gaming because they can't get a cup of cofee between attacks without pausing the game manually.
4. Health points... Deus Ex almost blew away health points all together with their health per body section display, but now, all these years later, we're still relying on a health meter to tell us if we're in fighting condition. Shooting someone in the finger will eventually drain someone's health points to 0 in a game, rather than destroy the finger and it's function like it would in real life. I simply find this system overly basic and annoying, particularly when we know that we can do better.
You really should play RE4 further, it uses button pressing sequences (I don't call them "button mashing" sequences because you don't literally mash the buttons, you just press them once when they come up on the screen) differently than all the other games.
Instead of having specific button pressing sections, they come up rarely during cut-scenes and gameplay, more to test your concentration than your reactions. There are a few exceptions to this like running away from the boulder and the knife fight with Krouser though.
I really don't like random puzzles that, when you read/work out the explanation, there didn't seem to be any logical way to work out. One prime example is a puzzle in RE4 where you have to turn 3 indistinguishable shapes into a certain direction to make them form a simple when they combine to open a door.
Another example was in the first level of god of war 2 where you have a pad that opened a door, another pad on the other side of the door that opened the second door and a block. If you stand on the first pad, you can roll under the first door before the first door closes. I spent ages trying to work out how to get the block on the second pad until I put the block on one specific place on the pad where the game tells you how to do some random kick move to kick it under the first door.
Instead of having specific button pressing sections, they come up rarely during cut-scenes and gameplay, more to test your concentration than your reactions. There are a few exceptions to this like running away from the boulder and the knife fight with Krouser though.
I really don't like random puzzles that, when you read/work out the explanation, there didn't seem to be any logical way to work out. One prime example is a puzzle in RE4 where you have to turn 3 indistinguishable shapes into a certain direction to make them form a simple when they combine to open a door.
Another example was in the first level of god of war 2 where you have a pad that opened a door, another pad on the other side of the door that opened the second door and a block. If you stand on the first pad, you can roll under the first door before the first door closes. I spent ages trying to work out how to get the block on the second pad until I put the block on one specific place on the pad where the game tells you how to do some random kick move to kick it under the first door.
I dislike:
- Forced tutorials. Ones you cannot skip. If you can't get past the tutorial in less then 10 minutes then it's a waste to even try and play the game again. Many games fail at this.
- Lack of saves. Saves are something that I think no designer can honestly say can't be put in a game. No, "save points" and the like are just as bad. There is no technology barrier, and the aim of games isn't to artificially make it harder just because you can't save anywhere.
- Losing because the game is incompetent. I think it's mentioned above - anywhere when the player can fail but not due to his own actions, but by some random chance (or poor AI), is a terrible thing. Needing fast reactions to choose paths but not knowing where they go also could be included here - the player doesn't know X goes the right way but Y doesn't, so has a 50/50 chance of doing the incorrect action through no fault of their own.
There's some others too, I hope these are strictly mechanics too
- Forced tutorials. Ones you cannot skip. If you can't get past the tutorial in less then 10 minutes then it's a waste to even try and play the game again. Many games fail at this.
- Lack of saves. Saves are something that I think no designer can honestly say can't be put in a game. No, "save points" and the like are just as bad. There is no technology barrier, and the aim of games isn't to artificially make it harder just because you can't save anywhere.
- Losing because the game is incompetent. I think it's mentioned above - anywhere when the player can fail but not due to his own actions, but by some random chance (or poor AI), is a terrible thing. Needing fast reactions to choose paths but not knowing where they go also could be included here - the player doesn't know X goes the right way but Y doesn't, so has a 50/50 chance of doing the incorrect action through no fault of their own.
There's some others too, I hope these are strictly mechanics too
Bringing me into my major points: Devs telling too much sometimes, and devs telling too little. The entire game of PH I sped through, enjoying my time. However, on the other extreme, the 2nd or 3rd time into the PH temple, I had a map on the wall, and a map on my bottom screen. After trying every possible combination, I turned off my game, only to realize I had to go through the entire temple again. After doing it, I got on the internet, and it said that I had to PHYSICALLY SHUT MY DS, transfering the mark. It's so obvious, yet none of my friends have thought to do it either. /end rantGirlysprite said:
2. For FPS, nothing bothers me more than turning it up on the hardest difficulty, and having IMPOSSIBLE THINGS HAPPEN. COD4, I'm looking at you, my friend. I only play CoD series on veteran, because usually, it's the only challenging difficulty. But in COD4, they introduced a new gameplay mechanic, shooting through walls...which, I found out, was a double edged sword. For example, I hadn't gotten a checkpoint for a while and was in a building. I scanned the corridor...no guys. I went prone, and crawled to the doorway on the right. Before I even got to the doorway, meaning still safely in front of a wall...I get headshotted. As I'm dying, I look up, and see a single bullet hole right where my head was...damn. I felt like I was playing CS with a wall hacker...and promptly yelled at my T.V. the same thing. I like fighting people that know how to aim, and where bullets can kill in a single hit, but unfair things like that example ruin fps. I mean, who randomly points their gone at the floorboard and SHOOTS where someone's head could POSSIBLY be. /end rant
3. I hate the mechanic that harder difficulty = more health, more damage. I don't mind if I have less health, but when the AI is the exact same, meaning that if I play easy setting, the AI pretty much charges in and gets wasted by three shots. But when I play hard/uber badass difficulty, they still charge in, which is a moronic move, but somehow, they take three clips of (insert gun), and still charge stupidly. Why should I play the game on a harder difficulty if the AI doesn't improve, they just go on steroids.
4. Boo to non-realistic bullet-body contact. If I shoot someone in the arm, I expect them to drop the gun in that arm's hand. If I shoot somebody in the leg, they should lose balance and topple over. And the most annoying one is that if I take the time to shoot somebody in the THROAT so that they can't yell out an alert to their buddies taking a nap, I don't want him to go "Ambush, to arms brothers". I want him to try to yell out an alert, but not be able to due to the gaping hole that was his throat. Maybe I'm just sadistic, but that's something I dislike about tactical FPS games.
Cheers, Unholykrumpet