"This game shouldn't have that. It's unncessary."

[someguy1231]

I'm really tired of seeing people argue against something in a game solely because it's "unnecessary". Think of your favorite video game. There's a good chance that most if not all of the things you like about it could be argued to be "unnecessary" too.

The truth is, there are very few things that a game truly needs. Some form of interaction with the player, and that's about it.

Many of us agree that "The Witcher 3" is an excellent game. Yet it still would've been an enjoyable and coherent game if it didn't have Gwent. Does that mean Gwent should not have been a playable mini-game in TW3? Of course not.

Yet I've seen tons of people use that exact same logic against various game features. I used to be a regular on the Bioware forums, and I remember when it was announced that Mass Effect 3 would have multiplayer, there were tons of posters who were vocally against it because it was "unncessary" or would "take away resources that could be used for other things." Of course, once ME3 was released, many considered the story to be a disappointment, and ironically the game's MP feature was one of its most praised features.

My point is, people only argue against something in a game because it's "unnecessary" if they don't like what it is. Just because something is "unnecessary" doesn't mean a game shouldn't have it. If video games only ever did what was "necessary", then they never would've evolved past Pong. One could argue that 99% of everything in a video game is a collection of unnecessary parts and features combined to (hopefully) create a coherent and fun whole.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'm not really seeing an argument against unnecessary features here. Gwent, in fact, was unnecessary, and a large portion of the player base (Me included) just ignored it. It wasn't a big deal, though, because its fairly obvious that it took a trivial amount of the developers time and resources to make.

On the other hand, you have Mass Effect 3. People said the multiplayer was going to detract from the single player gameplay. And lo and behold, the single player campaign failed to impress. Does that mean for certain multiplayer killed the game? Of course not, but it would be foolish not to consider it.

Fact is, some things are a waste of time and are unnecessary. At best, it's a waste of time for the developers and ignored by the players. At worst, the game succumbs to feature creep and dies.

 

[meiam]

Well it takes resource to make stuff, you can spend it on making a necessary feature better or make an unnecessary feature. I for one would have gladly taken good combat in witcher 3 (say variety in weapon, with different sword having different speed reach or any number of idea, I can go on for 2-3 page worth of stuff that could easily improve W3 combat) in exchange for no gwent.

Unnecessary feature is the stuff you put in the game when all core feature are solid (they don't need to be done at the moment you make the decision, but they need to have potential). When your spending resource making a multiplayer mode for a single player focus franchise where the single player portion is very weak, something is wrong. Doubly so if you also then force the player to take part in the multi player and then forcefully include some strange notion, like the fact that apparently gunning down a few cerberus officer in one random facility somehow makes a larger difference than having competent leaders in charge of various army.

 

[Saelune]

It depends on what such unnecessary content does provide, cause some of it can provide -something-. There were some unnecessary spells in Morrowind, but they did provide something with their existence. Resist Corpus Disease is one such spell which is completely useless to the player, but makes sense that it exists because not everyone is the Nerevarine and only have to worry about corpus for plot purposes, so for the sake of realism, its cool that it exists.

Basically minor details are cool, and sometimes useless things may provide some other less obvious use even if its just immersion or something.

But ofcourse sometimes things are in a game and don't need to be...like multiplayer in some games...or singleplayer in others. Its a case by case issue though.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Well blindly adding stuff to a game can be bad certainly. Take Persona 4 Golden adding the Accomplice Ending in for example (yes i'm still mad) it goes against everything the theme of the game stands for and obviously is only there because they wanted as much new stuff in there as possible and they dropped the ball on the excellent consistent theming in the game so far.

Yes, it's optional but it's there. It's an option that I could take but the argument that the Broswagtagonist would remotely consider that ending is tragic and pretty much untrue at this point. Yes maybe he would think about it towards the start before he gets involved in all the friendship garbage but three quarters of the way through the game? Really?

Imagine a perfect house, that house being Persona 4. Now for some reason you want to add a conservatory onto the front, so you get someone to add one on, that conservatory being the Accomplice Ending. Yeah it's an extra piece added onto your house but it kind feels like it looked better before...

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Witcher 3 without Gwent? You speak nonsense.

It is a weird 4th wall breaking mini-game and no character seem to be aware of that fact, but it enriches the universe so much. Unique mini-games are world building details that make the world feel more alive. So it's not just a mini-game, it's an aspect of that world. And because it's entirely optional you can't really say that it's unnecessary. You don't have to engage in it, yet you still benefit from the fact that the world feels more fleshed out by its existence. It wouldn't be the same if it existed but you couldn't engage in it. But you can and it is entirely up to you if you want to know how it works. Just like any other card game in the world. If anything, The Witcher 3 could use more mini-games. I miss dice poker.

Most games that have a gazillion weapons don't need them. Open world games like GTA benefit from more weapons because more details in the open world is always a good thing, but in games like the last Splinter Cell game it's just nonsense. You should only have enough weapons that choosing one over the other will give you an obvious advantage or disadvantage in certain situations. Weapons need to be vastly different from each other.

 

[MythicMatt]

[Before I start, I have no idea what I'm really talking about here, and may just be saying stupid stuff]

Most calls of "Unnecessary", while sometimes justified, refer to optional content.
...Yep, that's an opening statement I can stand to use.

So, when is it justified? When a game has 20 different sniper rifles? When a franchise known for being single player drops a multiplayer mode in? Having optional minigames to play?
Or, we could go to an even more basic question: Would this be just as fun if it had all the graphics of a Nintendo 64 game?
Personally, I feel that's where the entire industry is going wrong. Minigames and multiplayer, sure, add them in if you have the time [or make multiplayer later as an independent, free DLC that requires the original game]. But before you start making things 2016p 60FPS with models using somewhere in the millions of polys, make a more basic version which plays exactly the same. Do a closed [or, if you dare, open] alpha of the basic build, not just for fixing bugs, but getting feedback on how much fun the players had, and what could be added to make it more fun.

TL;DR: Graphics are the least necessary part of a game, work on everything else first.

...So, yeah. Well, now I've written it, may as well post it.

 

[Dalisclock]

The issue being that you have finite time, people and resources for everything. Every dollar and man-hour used for one aspect can't be used for another, so you need to make it count. If the game comes out being awesome, nobody cares because people are happy. However, if the game is shitty, unplayable or has missing core features while at the same time having a bunch of emphasis on distractions/side content, expect people to call you out on it. It becomes apparent that you have no idea how to properly manage resources or prioritize.

If your mini-game is better then the main game, you're doing it wrong(I haven't played Witcher 3, so I have no opinion on gwent, whatever it is). If your game has shitty single and multiplayer, the argument can be made that maybe you should have picked one and focused on it so you could have had either really good single/multiplayer instead of mediocre both.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with extra stuff that enhances the game and makes it feel more real or fun. However, if your engine is broken, your presentation is terrible, your script/VA is cringe-worthy(and it's not supposed to be) and you keep trying to force multi-player into a single player game, no one is gonna care about awesome your reproduction of the Cathedral of Notre Dame is.

 

[Fox12]

I'm really tired of seeing people argue against something in a game solely because it's "unnecessary". Think of your favorite video game. There's a good chance that most if not all of the things you like about it could be argued to be "unnecessary" too.

Eh, not really. I'm a fan of minimalism. I like stripping things down to their bare essentials. That's why games like Silent Hill 2 are amongst my favorites. Everything has a place, and fits together like a puzzle. I don't like it when a game has tons of tacked on features. They feel unorganized, and lack cohesion. I like for all of the features of the game to come together to push the game forward.

You're welcome to disagree with me, of course, but I tend to criticize unnecessary features.

 

[Elijin]

I feel like people talking about the opportunity cost of one aspect such as multiplayer have no clue what they're talking about. Unless its a small studio game, the teams are specialised, often not even in the same office. If you remove an aspect from the game, it doesnt automatically transition into that team working on other parts of the game. People have specialised focus areas. If they arent going to work on a particular aspect of the game, they wont shift gear and change job. They'll go work on that aspect in another game.

Mass Effect 3 is a great example. The MP team was in a different country. They worked exclusively on combat and arena elements of the game. There was no story in the MP element. So what does its exclusion result in? Its certainly not more staff to work on the guts of the story, which was what received the ire of the audience. At best it could be seen as more money to work with in general. But even then the staff were in another location, so its more money without more time, which isnt a huge deal.

So yeah, the concept of 'not necessary' is usually just a fans lovesick attempt at finding a scapegoat for why their beloved title didnt quite do it for them, isolated from any grounded reality.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It's way too hard to tell beforehand if something unnecessary won't be genius.

BioShock 2's multiplayer was unnecessary and absolutely forgettable. On the flip side, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was a lot of fun. Both added multiplayer to a singleplayer franchise, but the results were completely different.

On the diversion side, The Witcher 2's diversions were pure shit. But that was a surprise, given that Dice Poker in The Witcher was as engaging as the main game, if not more engaging. I spent way too much in Dice Poker in The Witcher, but I stopped caring about all Witcher 2's diversions well before the end of the game.

That said, there does come a point where developers really need to step back and ask themselves if all the stuff they're adding (or keeping) is necessary. Call of Duty is a great example of a series that has gotten so bloated on unnecessary progression fluff that it has actually started hindering the core gameplay, because so much of it is barricaded behind hours of unlocking stuff that we already spent hours unlocking in the last iteration. I just want to get out there and shoot people! I don't want to spend hours unlocking the necessary perks and attachments to make that fun again.

So basically, I'm not going to complain too much. Developers should take care, but if it doesn't look to be hindering the overall experience, then it seems worth putting a little effort. Worst case is you get something forgettable. However, there's always the possibility of making something remarkable.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Well blindly adding stuff to a game can be bad certainly. Take Persona 4 Golden adding the Accomplice Ending in for example (yes i'm still mad) it goes against everything the theme of the game stands for

How exactly? The theme is "Finding your true self". If we open it up a little, it means you need to accept and aknowledge all the good and all the bad as part of yourself. You are a sum of your parts and by aknowledging that, you can try to improve yourself. So how does this ending go against that?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Glancing vaguely and briefly in the general direction of my games shelf, nothing really jumps to mind, as yes, it's usually just an expression of subjective preference.

Swap out 'unnecessary' for ill-suited? Then there are sturdier cases to be made. An obvious one from last gen are the vanilla edition boss fights in Deus Ex:HR, whose design pretty much directly contradicted the otherwise varied forms of playstyles supported in the rest of the game.

On the other hand, you have Mass Effect 3. People said the multiplayer was going to detract from the single player gameplay. And lo and behold, the single player campaign failed to impress. Does that mean for certain multiplayer killed the game? Of course not, but it would be foolish not to consider it.

I was one of those SP > MP naysayers, and I was proved impressively wrong - the MP had zero impact on the quality of the SP, and the MP was actually damn good fun and well made (and well received). Not sure how the consensus is that the SP "failed to impress" - I don't recall that being common amongst reviews at the time.

I think DA:I's MP was developed by a separate team, and its SP is nowhere close to ME3's SP in terms of polish or focus.

 

[Erttheking]

Well blindly adding stuff to a game can be bad certainly. Take Persona 4 Golden adding the Accomplice Ending in for example (yes i'm still mad) it goes against everything the theme of the game stands for

How exactly? The theme is "Finding your true self". If we open it up a little, it means you need to accept and aknowledge all the good and all the bad as part of yourself. You are a sum of your parts and by aknowledging that, you can try to improve yourself. So how does this ending go against that?

The main theme is also "Reach out to the truth" and that ending pretty much has you willingly turn your back on it.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Well blindly adding stuff to a game can be bad certainly. Take Persona 4 Golden adding the Accomplice Ending in for example (yes i'm still mad) it goes against everything the theme of the game stands for

How exactly? The theme is "Finding your true self". If we open it up a little, it means you need to accept and aknowledge all the good and all the bad as part of yourself. You are a sum of your parts and by aknowledging that, you can try to improve yourself. So how does this ending go against that?

The main theme is also "Reach out to the truth" and that ending pretty much has you willingly turn your back on it.

"Truth" in the context of Persona 4 means your "true self", the one which consists of all the good and bad that make you. Not the mystery.

 

[MHR]

It's takes huge development time and resources to make some shit tacked-on multiplayer.

No. We don't need it.

It's far more arguable that there are things that we DO need like another quality level to the main game, which could only come about if the resources not squandered on some terrible addition that we didn't need. Bioshock 2 could certainly have done with another level instead of that shit multiplayer that people stopped playing after about a month. With all the map work that went into that to make all the multiplayer arena levels and all the programming and voice-acting from all the player-character splicers, they could easily have made another quality level for the campaign.

I never played Witcher 3, but gwent seems arguable as a good addition that didn't take many resources. Plus I heard the cards you needed for it were collectible, and you would get some as quest rewards and so on. This actually ties it in with the rest of the game in a seemingly meaningful way. Besides, more things to collect counts as content within the base game.

 

[Erttheking]

Well blindly adding stuff to a game can be bad certainly. Take Persona 4 Golden adding the Accomplice Ending in for example (yes i'm still mad) it goes against everything the theme of the game stands for

How exactly? The theme is "Finding your true self". If we open it up a little, it means you need to accept and aknowledge all the good and all the bad as part of yourself. You are a sum of your parts and by aknowledging that, you can try to improve yourself. So how does this ending go against that?

The main theme is also "Reach out to the truth" and that ending pretty much has you willingly turn your back on it.

"Truth" in the context of Persona 4 means your "true self", the one which consists of all the good and bad that make you. Not the mystery.

It's about both. In order to get the true ending of the game, you need to realize that the mastermind behind the events of the game hasn't been exposed yet. You need to refuse to end the game and keep searching. Because the truth hasn't been found yet.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

I criticize unnecessary things not because I don't like them, but because they either add nothing to the game or are a detriment to the overall flow. While things like 'suddenly multiplayer' are a common thing for this (or in Titanfall's case, 'suddenly campaign'), it can also be design choices, like a really out-of-place fetch quest that doesn't fit into the story, or poorly thought out design elements. Even minor things, like how it's really unnecessary that the pokemon catching tutorials isn't skippable despite 20 years of maintaining the exact same formula.

Currently, an unnecessary thing I can think of is the fact that in Xenoblade Chronicles X, you have to go find your party members in the city to get them to join - except many quests also require you to have certain party members with you. It doesn't really add anything to the game world for doing it (since it's really easy to have them in the game world but still have a selectable menu somewhere) and just results in a bunch of extra piss taking before you can go out on quests (not helped by the games long load times if the necessary party members are outside the Barracks).

 

[Objectable]

Technically, NOTHING in video games is necessary. Graphics, text, even video games themselves are not necessary.