Game mechanics you hate

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

The article on exactly why escort missions suck made me think about some game mechanics I particularly loathe, and also curious as to how other people feel about them, and others I've perhaps not thought of as quite so sucky.

My pet peeve for this post is what Yahtzee refers to as "God of War Simon Says Button Mashing." I personally first experienced it on the Dreamcast not with Shenmue, but with Sword of the Berserk, and instantly disliked it.

Games are interactive entertainment, and I feel this mechanic scales back the interactivity to the early 80s, or late 70s (whenever Simon was popular). I hate it because it takes a complex game, and boils it down to a binary system where one option is instant failure.

I admit my dislike for this mechanic is probably irrational in its vehemence. It is to the point that I will not play any games that contain it, which means both God of War games (despite being something that would otherwise be right up my street) are games I have not played, and I played Resident Evil 4 only up to the point where this mechanic was revealed, and that is another game almost everyone seems to love. I was personally disappointed by the lack of zombies because I find nothing so satisfying as shooting zombies, and watching their heads explode, but that is neither here, nor there.

My loathing of this mechanic is aggravated by the fact it is now appearing in so many titles I would otherwise want to play. I don't understand its appeal, and wonder why it is being put in otherwise perfectly acceptable games.

I know at least one person will probably tell me to get over it, and it isn't that bad, but I'm old, and cantankerous. You know how old people are about things they don't understand.

I also don't enjoy rail shooters, or light gun games, but they don't suddenly force themselves without warning into other games I'm playing so they don't bother me in the same way. They are simply genres I don't enjoy.

So what do you think? Am I an old man shaking a liver spotted fist at newfangled gameplay I can't grasp, or is my complaint that this mechanic is a crap gimmick valid? Furthermore is there anything you see time, and again in games that makes you crazy?

 

[Katana314]

I actually kinda like rail shooters, but for some of them your goal is a bit vague, like the last mission of Call of Duty 4. It seems as long as you face the enemy trucks and hold fire, you can make it through.

I think that the button-timing things were a fresh and well-executed idea in RE4, but since then they've just become pointless and tedious.

One thing I've started to hate is the oh-so-old first-person melee movements of modern games. It seems like the sword fights in Oblivion haven't even evolved that far from the knife fights in Counter-Strike. Swordfighting is complex, and I feel like SOMEONE should be able to grasp that.

 

[Nidenel]

I agree with irrelevant gamer, those simon-says-esque point are very annoying to me. It feels as if the developer got lazy, and could not implement that aspect of the game properly. The most annoying part is that the move or action is very elaborate, but the way you control is not. However, i am not such a purist to this point. I am loving RE 4 (still playing) and I think it is mixed in really nicely in this game. The battle with the creature in the "lagos" was pretty epic and the style of game play was used to simulate the swimming. The difference in RE 4, is that it maintains the feeling of the action. Swimming for you life is represented by mashing x repeatedly, like how some one would mash the water in an all out sprint. In fighting games like GoW or Heavenly sword the feelings of doing a complex finishing move is not matched by pressing square, circle, circle, triangle, or what have you.


I think one of the most annoying game play mechanics to me is in RPGs. RPGs, especially MMORPGS, are plagued by the click here to move control style. So in order to move towards a certain area you click on the floor and your character moves there. I see no reason why any one would make a game like that. There are more easier ways of controlling a character than this method. I hate this method of control so much that I will not play a game that has this control style. I hate it more than i hate the classic tomb raider walking set up.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

@Katana314
I agree that most first person games fail when it comes to sword fighting. That was one of the weak points of Oblivion, and led to me being a sneaky character who avoided stand up fights whenever possible.

Have you played Might and Magic Dark Messiah at all? I feel their sword fighting is at least a step up from Oblivion although it is still not fantastic.

@Nidenel
I will say this about the click to move control style. I think it had its day in games like Baldur's Gate since you controlled a group of characters in an isometric viewpoint, but I see no reason for it in a game where you control only one character like an MMORPG. I think a lot of the things RPGs do are done out of tradition rather than necessity.

Turn based fighting like what is found in almost all JRPGs is something a lot of people dislike, but it actually serves a purpose as you're controlling a group rather than an individual, and I've yet to play a game that does well with controlling a group in real time that isn't an RTS, and in those single units are hardly essential, and are expected to expire during the course of the game. Party members dying during a battle in a JRPG is seriously hampering. I mention this because it is one RPG convention I see a good reason for, unlike click to move.

 

[LordLocke]

I got tired of menu-driven 'action' towards the end of the SNES era. Especially when the menu options basically boil down to a) Do damage to enemy, b) Heal yourself, or c) A bunch of stuff that isn't as good as A or B unless you're talking game-breaking material (Final Fantasy 7 and 8, I'm looking at you)

Even the gimmicks that came about from Super Mario RPG started to get old as games started including them more and more in increasingly asinine influences. Some games handle them well (mostly other Mario RPGs, in fact- Mario and Luigi gets huge props for basically letting you go through the game without ever taking damage if you're good enough) while others make one want to smack the developer that calls timed button presses 'new and innovative' combat systems (Shadow Hearts). Meanwhile, games which have streamlined such combat so that they'll do basic attack and defense actions automatically (Knights of the Old Republic, for example) or even better, let you set a signifigant amount of AI so they'll automatically handle the weaker stuff with some forethought and planning on your start (Final Fantasy XII) have slowly won my blackened and withering heart back on the genre that I bailed on years ago.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but at least better then the generally worthless and occasionally suicidal 'Autobattle' command some SNES RPGs came up with (I see you there, Breath of Fire)- just enough automated that you don't have to mash a button to plow through the easy stuff just in case something that warrants real attention pops up.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I agree about the simon says bits when they're badly done, when they're sanely designed and you can actually do them without having to repeat them fifteen times because the prompts are indistinctly marked and only last a fraction of a second (Yes, Jericho, I am looking at you) then I quite like them as a break from the norm.

The thing that really gets me down is random battles. Seriously, they're not necessary any more, the NES hardware limitation that led to their existence is gone now, and it's just tradition and laziness that keeps them in place.

 

[Nidenel]

I think menu driven combat can be fun and very strategic. FF 10 had a very nice combat system, where if you lost it was because you did not plan well. FFXII had a nice real time combat sysem but besides for little monsters how does any one play that real time? Well for me at least I had to pause. On a side note the battle system in Mass effect looks really good, makes me wish I had an x360. But I agree, the classic jrpg battle system is getting old for the most part.

And while mostly annoying, the escort mission are not bad in themselves. But rather, a poor design on the devs part. You can blame the AI but not the escort mission itself.

That brings me to my next point "next gen". With all the next gen bells and whistles in the graphics department, I do not see as big strides in the animation and AI department. I mean a person can throw the exact puch every time? I hear that Drakes Fortune is trying to improve on this.

 

[Isthiriel]

I actually kind of like escort missions, provided the AI of the escortee is more intelligent than a toaster.

I think Oblivion's melee control was actually a step backwards; the whole point of a RPG is that you are playing a character and if you-the-character are a L50 SuperBarbarian you shouldn't be able to be killed by an imp simply because you-the-player never got the hang of timing the block button.

OTOH, any game with a fancy weapon swing that PASSES THROUGH THE ENEMY, should result in said enemy being CLEFT IN TWAIN. Not merely losing 5% (or less) of their health bar. Some games are worse than others. Jedi Academy was the worst I've seen (since you are using a light sabre that has been demonstrated to cut through 3ft thick armored bulk heads), Oblivion was fairly bad for this, NWN/2 was fairly good. The video I've seen of Assassin's Creed (despite their highly-touted, "extra-special-never-before-seen-buy-me-now" combat system) puts it on the "We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do This Right" list.

OTGH, NWN/2 doesn't understand the player/character skill separation in dialog... you can have 25 (GODLIKE) Intelligence and flub basic riddles and memory exercises.

 

[Ranzel]

I actually kind of like escort missions, provided the AI of the escortee is more intelligent than a toaster.

I think Oblivion's melee control was actually a step backwards; the whole point of a RPG is that you are playing a character and if you-the-character are a L50 SuperBarbarian you shouldn't be able to be killed by an imp simply because you-the-player never got the hang of timing the block button.

OTOH, any game with a fancy weapon swing that PASSES THROUGH THE ENEMY, should result in said enemy being CLEFT IN TWAIN. Not merely losing 5% (or less) of their health bar. Some games are worse than others. Jedi Academy was the worst I've seen (since you are using a light sabre that has been demonstrated to cut through 3ft thick armored bulk heads), Oblivion was fairly bad for this, NWN/2 was fairly good. The video I've seen of Assassin's Creed (despite their highly-touted, "extra-special-never-before-seen-buy-me-now" combat system) puts it on the "We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do This Right" list.

OTGH, NWN/2 doesn't understand the player/character skill separation in dialog... you can have 25 (GODLIKE) Intelligence and flub basic riddles and memory exercises.

The problem with a sword system you described is that it's instantly killing the enemy. Implement that in a game like oblivion and levels become pointless, as all it will take to kill someone is a sharp sword and a well timed swing.

I think that this SHOULD be implemented, believe me, but I think it wont be implemented any time soon because it'll turn one enemy into nothing, meaning the player will have to fight many enemies to face any challenge. Boss battles will become near pointless, because as long as you land that swing at the head, the boss is dead. What I really want to see, if this was implemented, is a system that lets you choose individual body parts to slice off in one swing, ala Vagrant Story. Even then, though, slice off a guys weapon arm and he cant do jack. Cut off both his legs and hes useless, therefore dead. It'd be nice to have more than one way to kill the enemy but no matter how you "cut" it, one slice is all it'll take.

 

[newtonsepiphany [deprecated]]

There are exceptions to every rule. Even the "Simon Says Button Mashing." Chef's Love Shack for NES 64 is still one of the 5 greatest multiplayer games of ALL time. Its right up there with Twister, by golly.

Go to your used game store and dust off that NES at your next party.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

There are some really good points in this thread about gameplay mechanics that are outdated, ridiculous, or just too often poorly implemented. It has reminded me of another issue I have with some games.

I think a lot of conventions of RPG gameplay have become irrelevant in the medium of video games, and one of my biggest problems is with the "to hit" roll.

I've played my share of pen and paper RPGs. In a system where all you have are dice, and imagination to resolve every situation you need the to hit roll to know if you have managed to strike your enemy, but in a video game that has a visual representation of your character, and your enemy that you can physically manipulate it becomes pointless. Seeing your character put his sword through someone, and the word "miss" popping up is nothing more than blind adherence to tradition.

I've brought this up before, and sometimes people argue that the to hit roll is still needed to show the progression of the character that is your character's chance to hit goes up as your level, or skill does, but this simply isn't true.

As your character's skill with a sword increases instead of assigning an increasing probability to the chance of him hitting his foe why not make the moves available to that character, faster, stronger, and more versatile? In this way the character's progression is maintained, but the player is also more involved in the combat.

I love RPGs. I mean look at my avatar. RPGs are my favorite genre, but I think they are being held back by this blind adherence to tradition. In a role playing game the holy grail is immersion. This is a game in which you are meant to feel more keenly than other that you are the character. That's what playing a role means, but nothing kills immersion like a clunky interface, or system that comes between you, and the easy manipulation of your character. I laugh whenever I hear about how immersive any MMO is because nearly all of them feature said clunky interfaces.

The to hit roll is simply one symptom of an antiquated system, and has become symbolic for me of this blind adherence to tradition.

I used to bring this up on MMO forums, but was frequently shouted down by people who thought I was threatening their favorite style of play, but when I watch someone playing WoW I don't see an immersive fantasy world. I see a huge transparent system of stats, and a giant interface of doom between the player, and their character. The character is the only instrument through which the player can affect the game, and the more easily the player can manipulate the character the better, and more immersive the game can be.

I'd love to know if others feel the same way, or if I'm barking up a tree all by my lonesome.

 

[lemming52]

I actually kind of like escort missions, provided the AI of the escortee is more intelligent than a toaster.

I think Oblivion's melee control was actually a step backwards; the whole point of a RPG is that you are playing a character and if you-the-character are a L50 SuperBarbarian you shouldn't be able to be killed by an imp simply because you-the-player never got the hang of timing the block button.

OTOH, any game with a fancy weapon swing that PASSES THROUGH THE ENEMY, should result in said enemy being CLEFT IN TWAIN. Not merely losing 5% (or less) of their health bar. Some games are worse than others. Jedi Academy was the worst I've seen (since you are using a light sabre that has been demonstrated to cut through 3ft thick armored bulk heads), Oblivion was fairly bad for this, NWN/2 was fairly good. The video I've seen of Assassin's Creed (despite their highly-touted, "extra-special-never-before-seen-buy-me-now" combat system) puts it on the "We Couldn't Be Bothered To Do This Right" list.

OTGH, NWN/2 doesn't understand the player/character skill separation in dialog... you can have 25 (GODLIKE) Intelligence and flub basic riddles and memory exercises.

I agree for the most part, except for assasins creed thing. Im quite impressed with the combat in AC it feels fluid and smooth and one hit is usually enough to kill an enemy, the challenge comes from the fact that the enemys are very good at parrying attacks. This leads to old fashioned style swordfighting were it looks like your just banging swords together, right up until the point when you break his defences and run him through.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I've brought this up before, and sometimes people argue that the to hit roll is still needed to show the progression of the character that is your character's chance to hit goes up as your level, or skill does, but this simply isn't true.

As your character's skill with a sword increases instead of assigning an increasing probability to the chance of him hitting his foe why not make the moves available to that character, faster, stronger, and more versatile? In this way the character's progression is maintained, but the player is also more involved in the combat.

In a simple way, this is what Oblivion does anyway. The other Elder Scrolls just scaled damage, but Oblivion gave you the cardinal point values at every 25 point interval that gave you a new attack.

I also think that being able to actually block by telling my character to do so, rather than just seeing if a random chance fires (and interrupts what I was trying to do in the first place) is a big step forwards, not backwards. It makes the process interactive, which is the whole point of games.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

What Oblivion did was a start to the kind of system I envision. Eventually I'd love to see a top tier sword fighting character in an RPG that fights like someone from Soul Calibur. To have that kind of depth to the fighting in an RPG would make my day.

This brings me to another problem I have with some RPGs. For a genre I love I sure like to pick on them, huh? Different classes that play the same. Let me explain. In a lot of games the point is to fight a lot of people, or things, eventually working up to the main bad guy, and defeating them. In RPGs you are usually given choices as to what kind of character you want to play, with the basic archetypes being fighter, spell caster, and rogue. I like this about RPGs, but too often these different classes have to achieve the same exact goals, and some are not as well suited to it as others.

Take Oblivion for example. I played as a rogue, and focused on sneaking, and archery. These skills did not serve me well in the main quest when I had to venture into Oblivion to face demons. Thankfully there was plenty of other stuff for me to do as a rogue, but the simple fact was completing the game was in a sense beyond my abilities as that character.

In many games the spell caster starts off as laughably weak, but develops god-like power towards the end of the achievement scale, but for all of his might he is doing the same thing the fighter does; killing enemies. Thus the spell caster just has a variety of ways to be a fighter without using a sword. Diablo, I'm looking in your direction.

My disappointment with this state of affairs undoubtedly comes from my background in pen and paper RPGs where there is more freedom to use the classes in situations other than slitting up bad guys. Anyone who has seen an intelligent, and creative person play a wizard in D&D knows what I'm talking about.

So video game RPGs fall short because they are primarily about killing the enemy, and I frequently see no point in playing anything other than a fighter unless the game has other options for the rogue, and spell casters to pursue. If it is all just killing people why take the more circuitous path of a spell caster, or rogue?

I feel like a rogue in an RPG should play like Garret did in the Thief series. I'm not sure what a spell caster should play like however as I've never played a game based entirely around a wizard.

What I'm trying to say is that the archetypes should be more than different ways to kill people.

 

[superbleeder12]

I agree whole heartedly with the "all other classes are useless in most rpgs" thing. I'm a huge fan of the spellcaster in many paper and pencil games, because you had spells that weren't necessarily meant for combat. Oh the fun with prestidigitation.

I too rolled a rogue character in oblivion because they touted that it would be much better than morrowind (which on the xbox was nigh impossible to go into stealth mode) but it was another one of those "roll to spot the hiding person" thing.

I rather dislike games that tout some great game mechanic (bioshock's plasmids anyone)that is supposedly revolutionary, which, in the end, falls short. there were only like 3 useful plasmids in that game. When you have something in the game, pleas try to make it actually useful please? I NEVER found myself using that bee plasmid nor the big daddy lure plasmid.

I don't really have much qualm with the simon says button mashing gameplay element, only when it is implemented well. God of War did it quite well. But of the games I've played, that one did it the best. everything else felt like a video in which the developer thought it would be fun to have some semblance of interaction with the video.

One qualm that has bothered me is hair and cloak mechanics. its purely an atheistic qualm, but its still aggravating nonetheless. We have all this processing power to make photo realistic graphics and sprawling cities, but my hair acts like its anti gravity and has no collision with nothing whatsoever? That draws away from the immersion that these realistic games desire to convey.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The Bee plasmid was ace. Respectable damage and it really does stop them attacking you. I didn't use them much, because I'm a gun-bunny, but my mate went through with all sorts of fun combinations. See all those patches of oil around the place? Chuck a decoy in the middle of them, all the enemies cluster, because the decoy power in Bioshock actually works, and all the enemies don't ignore it and attack you anyway, and Incinerate! for happy fun barbecue time.

That was the thing about Bioshock, everyone says they've found "the only" or "the best" way of doing things in it, and no-one seems to agree. (My own plasmid of choice was Telekinesis, because shooting someone with a crossbow bolt then repeatedly pulling it out and sticking it back in them is my idea of an evening's entertainment.

 

[Girlysprite]

The reason that there are no class specific tactics to solve the main quest is that it would require a new level design for every class. Which would at least the double the amount of work. That the main quest of oblivion doesn't work as a rogue is wrong of course, but then again, you can't expect an rpg to become like thief once you picked the rogue.

By the way, I like the idea of a game centered around a wizard, like thief was centered around a rogue (3rd ed) or thief (2nd ed).

RPG's and classes...they are just playstyles and nothing more. And quite some work it out decently in that way (Diablo2 again). Computer games can no way come near pen and paper in playstuyle. pen and paper is infinite interactive, computer games can't touch that.

And combat calculation system: I do not like visible rolls and calculated hit/miss chances. Then again, lot of people love tweaking. It is not really about the ROLE they play, but about getting the best out their characters stat wise. That's what the clunky interface is for. and the rolls.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

The reason that there are no class specific tactics to solve the main quest is that it would require a new level design for every class. Which would at least the double the amount of work. That the main quest of oblivion doesn't work as a rogue is wrong of course, but then again, you can't expect an rpg to become like thief once you picked the rogue.

For a long time I accepted this as true, but I'm not so sure anymore. With very few exceptions the game Dark Messiah is viable to play as a stealth character, or a fighter. I don't think everything would have to be redesigned for each class, but it would require careful balancing of the level design.

Take for example the idea that your character has to retrieve a magical gem from an evil wizard who keeps said gem in his stronghold filled with guards. Assume in this game you can play as a fighter, wizard, or rogue. The path for the fighter would be fairly straightforward. Break down the front door, and fight your way to the chamber where the gem is kept. The path for the rogue could be to simply sneak in, avoid combat, and steal the gem without anyone being the wiser. Once again I'm not too sure about the wizard's options, but it could be a mixture of both of these things depending on spell selection, and personal preference.

I don't think it is impossible to design a game in which these three classes are viable for every situation, but it requires a design that doesn't have killing all enemies as the primary objective.

I do agree that video games will never approach the same kind of infinite possibilities that are found in pen and paper.

I also realize what the dice rolls, and interfaces in CRPGs are for, but I think it is sad that the least appealing part of an RPG (the number crunching) has become their primary identifying factor in video games.

 

[Saskwach]

Well my pet-peeves seem very similar to everyone else's but repetition never hurt anyone except drug addicts so here goes.
1)Escort missions. Bioshock went from an atmospheric shooter that made me care for those little girls to a standard one that I just wanted to end.
2)Vehicle sections in FPSes that clearly weren't designed for interesting vehicle combat. Call of Duty, Gears of War, Mass Effect (I'm calling it early but the first vehicle level-the only one I've done- was annoying and linear as all hell).
3)Strategy games with the standard "individual units pop out of buildings". Dawn of War was ok because somehow squads are alright with me but I just hate the mechanic.
4)Conversation trees that aren't trees but trunks. I've been seeing a lot of that in Mass Effect. Sometimes each option will make Shephard say EXACTLY the same thing. Why give me the choice if there wasn't any?
Also, I would like some dialogue options to permanently close off others just to give me a sense that I can't brute force my way into a target's good books.
5)As mentioned before, quick time events; those instances where we're asked to press a button to do something awesome we couldn't do otherwise.
6)Everything Irrelevant Gamer said about RPG choices and their stuntedness compared to the far greater interactivity of pen and paper. Seriously, RPGs are the one genre in which computers aren't and probably never will be superior in raw interactivity to their non-digital elder. So yeah, I'm one of those grouches who wants more choice and doens't think how much programming that actually means. I don't mind linearity in shooters or strategy games where it seems more logical that we would do what we're being told but in RPGs I want more.