Gaming pet peeves.

[Quellist]

Being forced to take characters into your party who you 1) Hate on sight and 2) Will never ever use

Worst offender: Tri-Ace

I dunno what these guys are upto. In Star Ocean 3 the two annoying kiddie characters (Roger and Pepitta) were entirely optional, allowing cooler choice (IMO) like Nell and Albel, but come SO4 not only are the annoying characters compulsory but 90% of the fucking party are horrible annoying kids and gonks. Ditto for Infinite Undiscovery and SO5 looks like it's going the same way.

Additionally these games even troll you by having the main character try to talk his way out of having them in the party only to be stuck with them, WTF Tri-Ace, do you want us to hate your games?

 

[JemothSkarii]

I'd like to just say 'Everything that Fallout 4 has shown' but that's not really a pet peeve... more an aneurysm.

Gaming pet peeves... Uhh, Saves before an unskippable cutscene and a really hard fight?

"THERE'S NO WAY YOU'RE TAKING KAIRI'S HEART"

Bullet sponge enemies. I remember when I was a kid I'd like to make myself as weak as possible so I could fight on par with A.I buddies or so I could sink a million hits into an enemy. But now it annoys the shit out of me if it takes 3 magazines of ammo to kill a non-boss character.

Localisation. Oh boy do I hate localisation. Between NISA's habits of throwing 'epic memes' into everything (and somehow breaking the game in the process) and changing the dialogue so much that Japanese voice acting sounds WAAAAY off (LOOKING AT YOU DRAKENGARD 3) it's just annoying. Pointless and annoying. Just translate it as straight as possible. Otherwise we'll make like Brock from Pokemon and enjoy some delicious onigiri donuts.

Rushing the fuck out of your plotlines. Ni No Kuni is my recent example of this, where they make a revelation never hinted at earlier in the game in one line of dialogue before a boss fight.... that and the pointless story tacked on after it. Oh Ni No Kuni, I wished I could have loved your story. So much promise.

 

[sageoftruth]

Having just played another JPRG recently, I've got two of them:

Antagonists whose motive is to "Atone for the sins of humanity" through genocide of the human race
It was a unique concept, once... a long long time ago, but seeing this concept get brought up over and over in so many JRPGs, other genres from Japan, and even some anime just reeks of lazy writing.

On a similar note:
Christian Symbolism
I understand that the Bible is fraught with stories and ideas that can be gleefully ransacked for interesting story concepts, but now I just sigh whenever I see words like "Sins", "Atonement" or "God" or any number of other obviously-based-off-the-bible terms in a JRPG. Too much of this and I'll start to consider turning to Activision for games with more original themes.

On a more general note:
Games that won't let you skip the opening credits every time you boot up
I'm certain I'm not alone here. Who isn't mildly peeved when forced to stare at the names of every publisher and development studio every time you boot up the game?

Also, thanks to Astebreed:
Subtitles in a fast-paced action game
It's really hard to stop and read what the characters are saying when I'm busy trying not to get blasted to pieces by a screen full of projectiles.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

 

[Cycloptomese]

Halfway through the game the developer decides to introduce a completely new control scheme involving unnecessarily difficult gameplay scenarios.

I'm looking at you, Rockstar!! Damn you Berkeley!!!

 

[happyninja42]

Having just played another JPRG recently, I've got two of them:

On a similar note:
Christian Symbolism
I understand that the Bible is fraught with stories and ideas that can be gleefully ransacked for interesting story concepts, but now I just sigh whenever I see words like "Sins", "Atonement" or "God" or any number of other obviously-based-off-the-bible terms in a JRPG. Too much of this and I'll start to consider turning to Activision for games with more original themes.

Yeah, this one is particularly amusing when it's been filtered through the language/culture of English --> Japanese, and then back to English. xD The flavor of the religiosity of it is quite amusing, seeing a shinto tinted version of christianity.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

 

[maninahat]

When either

a) in a cutscene, your character does a cool fight in which they show off loads of cool moves you aren't able to do during the actual game play, because the game can't trust you to be that awesome.

b) in a cutscene, your character does something incredibly stupid you would have easily avoided during the actual game play, because the game can't trust you to be a complete moron.

 

[WeepingAngels]

When you fight a boss who has shitloads of HP and some really cool attacks but when you beat and recruit them, they are level 1 with none of the cool attacks they used on you. Diablos comes to mind in FF8.

 

[cojo965]

Nighttime levels in multiplayer, and everyone is wearing dark clothing.

Battlefield: Hardline is especially bad about this because in the nighttime maps everyone is an indistinct black blob in a world populated entirely by indistinct black blobs, so I can't see the guys I'm supposed to be shooting very well.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

1. Make it play like Arma. 2. Dont put that scene in the game. Use a different weapon or tool or use a scenario no-one could survive, I.E.point blank and to the temple.

Those sound like compromises to me.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

1. Make it play like Arma. 2. Dont put that scene in the game. Use a different weapon or tool or use a scenario no-one could survive, I.E.point blank and to the temple.

Those sound like compromises to me.

What, am I supposed to change games without changing them at all? Define 'Compromises.'

It's really not that hard. You just have to think a little about what you're writing and how it fits into the context of the game mechanics. It just rarely happens since most videogame writers are morons and 3rd rate hacks, though thankfully that's beginning to change a bit.

I wasn't the one who said that it could be done without compromises. I know you will either have to compromise the story or the gameplay when you start going down the "oh no, the cutscenes are inconsistent with the gameplay, fix it!" path.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Protagonist/NPCs never shutting up

I've played a few games in my time where the player character, or their friend, the antagonist or whatever just never shut the fuck up. This made Borderlands really difficult to get through for me because the adherance to a massive quantity of jokes made most missions really tiresome. Sometimes I just want to focus on the gameplay and the incredibly dangerous situation the PC is in instead of listening the Vault Hunter/Nathan Drake/Horizon: Zero Dawn Lady making quips.

Forced walking

When games force you to walk around at a snails pace to show you their story. Even bloody Platinum, the team known for non-stop action pulled this shit. It makes repeat playthroughs incredibly jarring (the main reason why I'm finding it hard to continue my second playthrough of TLoU), and even on first playthroughs you sometimes just want some freedom.