What is the worst thing a game can do?

[SoranMBane]

Aside from making just plain bad design decisions, like bad controls or inappropriate use of regen health and the two weapon limit, I'd say this; being completely and utterly amazing in almost every way, but being so riddled with bugs that it's sometimes near impossible to get to the amazing bits. There is nothing more frustrating than knowing that there's a great experience to be had in a game, but at the same time knowing that the developers were simply too lazy or inept to make sure you could experience it properly, and there's no better example of this than Fallout: New Vegas. This is a game that, in the same breath, will have me experiencing a range of emotions and depth of immersion almost uncontested by any gamed I've ever played, and then have me in a frothing rage as it insists on slowing its framerate down to a crawl or just straight up freezing every five minutes. The fact that I keep coming back every time is a testament to just how good everything else is, but it's still unacceptable, even in such a complex game.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

The worst thing a game can do, above being ridiculously unbalanced, having crappy controls or having DRM is it being Boring to play.

I'd also second "not working", though this one can be just as likely bought on by User Error as much as it can be bought on by the game itself.

 

[Lilani]

mute protagonist.

Really? I think the last thing that would improve Half-Life 2 would be if Gordon Freeman spoke.

 

[Kadoodle]

Bore me. It can be buggy, juvenile, and handle like a bag of hammers sliding down a muddy slope...But if its entertaining and dare I say 'Fun' , im'a keep playing it.

Sounds like Just Cause 2 to me.


OT: The worst thing games can do? I dunno. The worst things SEQUELS can do? Well that I know.

Two examples, F.E.A.R. 2, and Resistance 2.

They both forgot what made the first game great. They failed to see the little things. In F.E.A.R. 2, monolith forgot that what made the first game scary was the tension and creepyness of the little girl in the red dress, and how she'd just suddenly BE there, balanced with the excellent action sequences filled with smart and dangerous enemies who WEREN'T monsters. It wasn't the in-you-face-dirty-naked-lady that F.E.A.R. 2 threw at you. F.E.A.R. 2 was all about cheap, in-your-face scares and action that was too frequent. They left behind the action-tension balance (as well as sound design) that made F.E.A.R 1 so scary.

The best example of this unpredictable tension and creepiness? The infamous 'ladder sequence.'

Look up scary moments for F.E.A.R. 2, and you will only find ghosts making objects fly around and Alma jumping at you in a predictable fashion. And when it wasn't cheap scares, it was orange/brown lighting and action sequences with weapons and guns that felt like downgrades from those of the first game.

Another example is the ghosts from both games. In the first, the ghosts appeared at the end of the game; in front of you the air would warp and tear up into a hole through which these black figures with horrifying facial expressions would fly. You'd hear the sound of metal scratching metal and then all sound would cut out and they'd just fly towards you.

In F.E.A.R. 2, the ghosts are white, the lighting flickers, and they're always noisy as they attack you.

Next example: Resistance 2. This one is simpler: The first game felt like a quake/halo/cod hybrid, taking the best from each game to make a stylish retro war shooter. Resistance 2 was almost all COD, with regenerating health and more colorful graphics, taking place in America and ruining the feel of the guns from the first game (whilst simply getting rid of some of the best from the first game). The style and balance of the first game was completely gone.

 

[Jegsimmons]

unlikeable characters. if the character are interesting enough i can live with almost everything else.

case in point: Uncharted one and two, not only boring but straight up annoying and unlikeable characters. same with FFX

 

[natster43]

Be Boring. If a game isn't fun or interesting, it has failed me.

Another thing I hate but not as much is when a game running on the same engine as it's predecessor, made by the exact same team and has very few new things in it ends up being buggier than the predecessor. I am looking at you Dead Rising 2 Off the Record!

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

The cardinal sin of gaming? Being boring.

This is all you need here.

A game can have sucky graphics (every NES/SNES/arguably N64 game out there), little to no story (most fighter games, especially old ones), no real-time gameplay (Heavy Rain), no real developed characters (say, racing games), and so on -- but in the end, if it does its schtick well, it is a fun game. And fun is what we're going for, which a few exceptions.

 

[SageRuffin]

Playability - When the game itself is rigged so that you can't proceed (e.g. one of the first patches in NG2 actually made it so that when you reached a certain late in the game, the game would crash without fail)

Narrative - Forced romances or gander-specific quest lines (e.g. for the former, if you play FemShep in ME2 it's nigh impossible not to romance Jacob unless you flat out tell him to fuck off. For the latter, again in ME2, you don't learn just why Jack is so messed up in the head unless you're either MaleShep or Sheploo, and I think only then if you romance her)

So, uh, yeah. Fuck all that.

 

[buhee]

According to the world of warcraft forums, the worst thing a game can do is allow you to play as a panda.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm actually really surprised no one's mentioned this yet.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/call-of-juarez-the-cartel

That. is. the. WORST. POSSIBLE. THING. a game to do. EVERRRRRRRRRRRRR. Seriously. I've had the unfortunate "pleasure" of playing this game.

DO. NOT. PLAY. THIS.

That's... pretty bad. Oh god that's awful

But on the other hand, Leni Riefenstahl [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl] is considered a begrudgingly respected pioneer of cinema, even though she made her innovations making propaganda films for the Nazis.

The thing is they were WELL MADE propaganda films, with really innovative ideas of montage and composition... except it was used to paint Hitler as some kind of Messiah. This seems to be a common theme in cinema, great cinematic innovations are made by extremists like the extremely Soviet The Battleship Potemkin and The Birth Of a Nation... which cast the Klu Klux Klan as racist heroes against the evil black man. These are the most important films ever made, and they were made by and for murderous extremists.

Their message is utterly reprehensible, the worst kind of lies.

But what else is cinema for but for lying? Depicting something that never happened?

These are horrific films in their message and intention, but does that make them fail to qualify as games? These films are lauded because they so effectively induce an response, though it is a totalitarian one, as films they are successful.

I suppose then we should be GRATEFUL that Call of Juarez 3 is technically a bad game, one that is unbearable to play. Imagine if it was good, and popular... yet carried those messages and values.

So in an almost ironic way the worst thing a game (or any media) can do is to be good: yet have a destructive message.

(PS: I was wondering where EC went, how long have they been at PA? I was hoping they'd get their differences sorted out with The Escapists... shame they didn't. This is why I never get into the charity game, it's so god damn tenuous with so much money and ambiguous wills on every side)

 

[ronhoward]

fuckin escort missions

 

[Robert Ewing]

Enemies that level up WITH you.

 

[Treblaine]

Enemies that level up WITH you.

I'm with you on that. I'd call it the

"+1 -1 = Zero" Problem

+1 is supposed to mean something in terms of gameplay progress, but if the enemies almost ALWAYS track that then if you step back from the stats nothing has really changed, it is STILL 3-4 hits to kill and the enemy can still kill you in 6 hits.

In that sense it is worse than games with no levelling at all because it acts like it is doing something when it isn't, worse it has a whole song and dance of levelling with an equal dance of cancelling out. I feel like I'm in a skinner box, numbers are being flashed at me but for not tangible difference in the game.

I always found enemy scaling to be the laziest of gameplay elements.

Problem: levelling can make you too powerful
Solution: Level enemies at same pace
Why that's dumb: you might as well just remove Levelling all together.

What about other methods such as introduce NEW enemies that you can only hope to confront at a higher level, or make the AI more aggressive, more numerous, or just down right more treacherous actively hunting you down and setting traps.

This is telling in the Legend of Zelda games that for the most part have no damage/armour levelling, yet it plays almost the same as a conventional western-computer-RPG where levelling is cancelled out by synchronous enemy levelling.

 

[Anthan]

Have controls which ether let you turn on the spot, walk in a straight line directly forwards, OR shoot.
Especially if the enemies are so durable that you keep having to retreat to stop them hitting you.
*2 zombies come at you* *Hold up gun* *Shoot Shoot shoot shoot* *One dies but the other is too close* *put down gun* *turn turn turn turn..* *walk walk walk walk..* *Check to see if that's enough distance* *turn turn turn turn..* *It's not* *turn turn turn turn..* *Walk walk walk walk..*
You get the idea...

 

[remnant_phoenix]

If it's a story-based game? Bad ending. Nothing leaves me as dissatisfied as an ending that doesn't pay off.

If it's a game that revolves around gameplay? When the game is difficult not because of true challenge factor, but because of poor design. Case and point: trying to play the console version of Dragon Age Origins on Hard or Nightmare. Without the full pause-and-play options available on the PC (namely the ability to position your party members), playing DAO on a console on a Nightmare setting is insufferably difficult, and not because of a good challenge.

EDIT: If it's a game where story and gameplay are balanced and equally engaging, either one can be "worst."

 

[Michael Hirst]

Take control away from the player. I hate it when I'm busy doing something having fun then suddenly the games decides to seize control from me to watch a scripted event. Call of Duty is doing this more and more with each installment.

Although I like God of War I hate it's constant QTE's for fighting bosses, it just reduces all skill and finese to a game of Simon. I prefer my games like Demons/Dark Souls, you really have to fight the enemies to the death and unless you're on the ball you're going to get killed by them. Another exmaple of a GREAT game that doesn't take control from the player is Shadow of the Colossus, no hand holding for while you climb up a colossus no freezing gameplay so the devs can shoe horn in a slow mo cutscene just you and the damn game going for it.

I'm for cutscenes but they have their own place that shouldn't interupt the middle of a gameplay segment.

 

[Ickorus]

I'd say the worst thing a game could do is be released unfinished, something most developers seem to be doing now.