Gameplay pet peeves.

[Texas Joker 52]

Floaty controls of any kind. I personally don't see any appeal to a having floaty, imprecise controls in any game that has proper 3 dimensions to move around in, unless you somehow move in a grid. Tighter, precise controls will always feel better, and it's hard to find a game that justifies otherwise.

In console games, lack of sensitivity options, or severely limited sensitivity controls. I can learn to make do, but I don't want to have to. For example, Mass Effect 3 has Low, Medium and High. In most others, there's either options of 1 through 10, with 1 being lowest and 10 being highest, or a somewhat vague bar that you can adjust to your hearts content.

Now, this involves several qualifiers but: Shooters that are not in third person and do not have some sort of ADS function, where the accuracy of guns is dependent on random bullet spread and not recoil. A combination of the two is alright, but I find most semblance of accuracy is lost when only spread is involved.

Also, relying on a RNG when it comes to getting items, particularly upgrades and the like. Also looking at you, Mass Effect 3.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I hate when Turn-based-strategy games reward experience only to the character that deals the final blow. It's fucking stupid! Not every character is designed for direct battle and damage dealing! Because of that stupid system player is forced to change his tactics and put weaker character in risk. Banner Saga is particularly bad in that regard where characters level up based on the number of kills they made. Some character classes are freaking designed to deal a final blow, while others are designed to chip away enemy defense! Fire Emblem: Awakening on the other hand is a very good example of how experience should be rewarded. Support characters get experience for supporting and you can level up weaker characters by pairing them up with stronger ones.

 

[Ironbat92]

Mine would be pressing a button to obtain ammo and money, like in Borderlands or Deus Ex. I just want to pick up the ammo/money when I walk over it, not press a button to pick them up. I also hate it when Rockstar makes you constantly press the A/X button to run. It's annoying and tires my thumb out.

 

[Auron225]

Broken currency systems are starting to bug me. In the vast majority of the games I've played in the last few years, money has never been an issue within the game. I always end up with far more than I know what to do with by the mid-way point - it completely removes the excitement or sense of accomplishment I'd otherwise get if I always had something in mind that I needed. I'm currently playing Xenoblade Chronicles and it's guilty of this; I don't even bother taking note of how much cash I'll get for side missions.

The only game I can think of that I played recently which didn't have this problem was Bioshock Infinite - namely cus it was pretty much impossible to upgrade everything. You could rely on ammo you found and switch weapons frequently enough to not need to buy ammo, and rarely need to buy salts and the like if you were good but upgrades always cost dearly. No matter how much you scavenged for cash; you wouldn't upgrade everything so you had to pick and choose.

 

[Raikas]

My biggest pet peeve is when multiple functions (meaning 4+) are mapped to the same key or button. Yeah, you can usually change the settings, but I usually only notice it after I've done things like reloaded a weapon when trying to pick things up, or punched someone when trying to talk to them at least 5 times.

Annoying!

 

[MysticSlayer]

Normally, I dislike when a game has a feature that is easily exploitable and the developers practically reveal that they knew it was easily exploitable. Arkham Asylum with its gargoyle...things...is one of the worst examples. When the guards started placing bombs on them, I just rolled my eyes, not because my favorite tactic was rendered useless, but because the developers had to draw attention to the fact that part of their game wasn't as well designed as it could have been. Thankfully, Arkham City fixed that problem and designed a more diverse array of environments.

There's also broken economies. This can include it being overly challenging to get enough money just to buy anything unless you do some serious grinding. If I remember correctly, Shin Megami Tensei IV had this problem, but I'm not entirely sure on that one. There's also the games that it is just too easy to get money. Assassin's Creed 2 and Xenoblade Chronicles are particularly nasty offenders.

Multiplayer progression systems. Specifically in terms of gameplay options a la unlocking loadout options in CoD. And it's not just my opinion here:

When players are picking from a pool of options, they are much happier with the decisions they make when provided all of the options simultaneously instead of sequentially.

You know, I am one of the many actually who really do like CoD's core gameplay. But I refuse to play online simply because of the progression system. Instead, I just play local games with people or bots where I have all the weapon and item options there at my disposal.

I really have to agree with this. Some games that experimented with unlock systems, such as Battlefield 2, gave you almost every option right away and unlocking what very little remained just felt like an occasional reward for being a fan of the game. Now there's so much you have to unlock, each one leading to other things you have to unlock, that it almost feels like a chore you have to do at the start of each new installment just in order to play the way you want to play.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I hate how in most RPGs, bosses are immune to all status ailments. Not even highly resistant, or varying, just.. immune.

So if the boss has a high magic defense then your black mage is pretty much fucked, as damage is all the black mage can usually do.

Shin Megami Tensei doesn't usually have this. Nor does Pokemon. Or Wakfu.... that's all three I can name that averts the above.

I also really hate broken in-game economies. For example: In Dragon Quest 9, money is... sparse. You can either go through the whole game with very minimal gear, and/or with a party of less than 4 to cut costs (damnit, I've seen entire playthroughs of this game with only the main character...) or do some pretty ridiculous grinding. Especially when you realise that there's an enemy right outside town that drops a much better thing, and you wasted your time getting the worse thing.

 

[gizmo2300]

Unusable doors. Don't put a door in front of me if I'm not supposed to open it. If I'm playing a game where exploration is a part of the game and I've been opening doors up till this point don't suddenly throw a door at me that's just painted on the wall.

On the control side, tho. No jump button is a problem. You know like in Legend of Zelda where the only way to jump is to just run towards the edge and pray that you remembered to move the camera in exactly the right position. Just let me do my jumping myself.

 

[NinjaSniperAssassin]

I have to echo the "one button for multiple tasks" sentiment. How many times did I get killed in ME2/3 because Shepard decided that my command to take cover was a command to vault over the piece of cover, right into the line of fire?

One that's specific to Assassin's Creed 4 would be the way they handle optional objectives. I'll start a mission, be given my main objective but not the side ones, and then get caught up in the mission and not notice the popup telling me to kill 2 ships with one broadside shot, for example. Yeah, telling me the side objectives right at the start might spoil some stuff, but ffs don't force me to pause the game after every event flag just to see if I missed the gd popup.

Missable items in games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim. It's not as big a deal in, say, Bulletstorm, because that's a short game that I don't mind starting over if I miss a skill shot or whatever. In a game like Fallout 3, when I miss a bobblehead and have to either let it go or go through 30+ hours of gameplay again I die a little inside.

And finally, a non-videogame example: Wizards of the Coast's policy with regards to the Magic: the Gathering modern banlist. Deathrite Shaman is a TOTALLY FAIR CARD. Their reasoning for banning it was that it is efficient at all stages of the game; in other words, "this card's good so we must ban it!" I don't even play Deathrite, in fact the deck that suffers the most from the banning is my worst matchup so it's actually good for me personally. It just pisses me off that the solution to good cards being played a lot is to ban them rather than, oh I dunno, unbanning some of the OTHER good cards they've banned to give players other options. Seriously, people pay a lot of money for decks in this format because it's supposed to be non-rotating (ie. you can play your deck forever without worrying about the cards leaving the format). At least with rotating formats players know exactly how much longer their cards are going to be legal.

 

[NinjaSniperAssassin]

Sorry, double post. How about a joke to apologize?

A dog calls his local newspaper and asks to put an ad in the paper to try and sell his favorite bone. The man on the line says, "Ok, what would you like the ad to say?" The dog says, "Please write 'Woof woof woof. Woof woof. Woof woof woof woof.' The man says, "Alright. You know, we charge a flat rate for the first ten words. Would you like to put another woof on the end? The cost would be the same.", to which the dog replies...

Spoiler: Get ready...

"But then it wouldn't make any sense!"

 

[Fidelias]

I can't stand games where every single level, or even the overarching plot, has a time limit. I like to take my time in games, especially the games I enjoy. I don't want to be penalized for taking an interest in every nook and cranny. When the game gives me a deadline, it starts to feel like work, which kind of contradicts the whole purpose of playing games during my free time.

 

[porous_shield]

I hate when a game steals the camera way from you to show something like an enemy, an important item, or switch. It always happens unexpectedly and when I'm trying to do something like turn to shoot an enemy so when I actually get the camera back I'm running into a wall or pointed in the exact opposite direction I was pointed in before leaving my back open for massive damage. It's even worse when the action isn't paused when they do the switch leaving my character doing absolutely nothing while the enemies get closer.

I hate fetch quests that involve multiple items that themselves involve multiple items to receive.

I wish games told you when you are about to trigger a cutscene. For example I walk into a room and there is ammo and a gun on a table and a couple of things to fiddle around with. If there was a little indicator that touching the television would activate a cutscene and make it impossible to pick up the gun or ammo, I'd be very appreciative.

I wish all games had an option to go back to a previous checkpoint.

 

[The Wykydtron]

RNG mechanics in PVP multiplayer games really annoy me. I'm playing some DOTA 2 and it really gets on my nerves sometimes. We once clawed a game back SOLELY because our Ogre Magi got a maximum x4 Multicast stun on the enemy carry. We 100% would have lost the game right there without that what, 11% or so chance?

Yes I know bitching at a clutch multicast in my team's favour is a bit weird but that's just one example out of many.

"Don't worry, this Phantom Assassin is completely shut down, i'll stop her from pushing on my own"

She gets 4 ult crits in a row, dead Antimage lol. Fucking Spirit Breaker banks his entire existence on his around 30% bash chance (In God We Bash.) and don't even get me started on Legion Commander's lifesteal.

How this game is played on a competitive level is beyond me. I imagine half the commentary would be "WILL HE GET THE BASH? WILL HE GET TH-HE GOT THE BASH! GG WP SON!"

Also on the rare occasions I play those people I get fuck all in the way of stuns, crits or other RNG bullshit. Fuck it, i'm going back to instalocking Antimage every single game. I want the other team's fun to be completely ruined.

 

[Altorin]

the only thing I'd call a pet-peeve is when you're forced to follow a slow-moving NPC and you can't walk at their speed.

WHY games?! WHY?!!?!? Why is it that I ALWAYS move either a little too fast or a little too slow? Why is it always a chore to stutter-step behind them?

Oh, and in another note, I hate when most of a game has me following NPCs then suddenly a quest will make me have to lead (and they NEVER have trouble keeping pace with me, of course). Often I just stand there waiting for them to move. Always peeves me.