What is the worst thing a game can do?

[Michaelis96]

Everything that N3: Ninety Nine Nights did. All you did was - "Walk into horde of goblins, mash attack button, repeat.". And the voice acting...my poor ears...Inphyy's voice was like listening to a cat being dragged through all nine circles of hell while having vigorous tiddily-fuddily with Pyramid Head.

 

[MidnightSt]

Treat me not as a PLAYER, but as an ACTOR in its story.

But the acting is part of the play.

When control is wrenched from you for a cutscene or scripted sequence to begin... you are not longer a player or actor, you are forced to suddenly be a passive observer in your own story!

you see, that's the thing... i don't mind being a passive observer in my own story, for a short time, while i watch events i can't and wouldn't possibly be able to influence unfold, but the problem is that most of the games don't feature "my own story" in the first place.

it's a subtle difference i'm probably not able to explain or even define/understand myself properly, but it is there.

it's the difference between playing a game with a story that someone wrote, but i agree with the game that for now it becomes "my own", and playing a game which nags me around every corner that "no, no, no, bad boy, don't you get it, this is NOT your story, this is the story of the game's protagonist, you're just a necessary evil to advance it forward, and you're supposed to be an actor that represents the protagonist"

...yes, that's probably the best way i'm able to describe it (though still not a really good way to describe it overally) - it's the difference between "the main game character represents you (is a placeholder for you) in the game world" and "you represent the main game charcter (you are a placeholder for him) in the game world"

it's really hard to describe, it has nothing to do with choice about story branching, it's more about feeling it. it's the "what character does makes sense for me to do in the game" as opposed to "i have to do it just because the character i play does it".

sadly i can't remember any examples, because when the game does this, treats me as an instrument/as a means to give the character ability to do what the storywriter wanted him to do, i just stop caring about the story at all.

(maybe it's the "me having an agency in the world" as opposed to "the character having an agency i just have to carry out"?)

yeah, lots of words that may all seem to say the same things, but that's just because i don't feel any of it really explains that feeling/difference, so i'm trying over and over again...

...does any of it makes at least a little sense?

 

[garjian]

Honestly?
Portray tall people as superhuman, particularly in strength, for no real reason.
It will almost instantaneously kill a game in my eyes.

It seems people are afraid to make a strong character a regular height or less, because people would somehow not be able to conceive anyone under 6'7", no matter their muscularity, being able to lift anything over the weight of a shortsword or pistol. Also, on the off-chance there is a muscular character thats a regular or short height, theyre never as strong as they should be, (except maybe Chris Redfield? ...but i havent played RE5, so i cant vouch for that) and theyre always at some point, put in their apparent place by a guy with the exact same build, but slightly taller... because how could they possibly hope to fight against somebody whos head is about 5% higher off the ground!? :O

Deus Ex, a game that specifically states that 'Bigger metal arms' are not 'Stronger metal arms', before long, throws you into a fight with a tall guy, who is therefore obviously a tank who just sits there and takes punishment, daring you to venture close to him so his slightly longer arms can tear you in half for no conceivable reason. All because he is slightly taller.
Youre both almost entirely metal from the neck down, youve been going round throwing vendine machines at people, knocking them our for god knows how long with one punch, absorbing bullets and healing without a scratch. But no, slightly-taller-guy beats you hands down on all these fronts of course. Hes obviously the manliest man in this room.
Of course, the only way you can beat him is little electric shocks or throwing gas canisters at him... You couldnt possibly hope to withstand the absolute might of Slightly-Taller-Guy head on!!!

Bull.
Shit.

 

[Treblaine]

Treat me not as a PLAYER, but as an ACTOR in its story.

But the acting is part of the play.

When control is wrenched from you for a cutscene or scripted sequence to begin... you are not longer a player or actor, you are forced to suddenly be a passive observer in your own story!

you see, that's the thing... i don't mind being a passive observer in my own story, for a short time, while i watch events i can't and wouldn't possibly be able to influence unfold, but the problem is that most of the games don't feature "my own story" in the first place.

it's a subtle difference i'm probably not able to explain or even define/understand myself properly, but it is there.

it's the difference between playing a game with a story that someone wrote, but i agree with the game that for now it becomes "my own", and playing a game which nags me around every corner that "no, no, no, bad boy, don't you get it, this is NOT your story, this is the story of the game's protagonist, you're just a necessary evil to advance it forward, and you're supposed to be an actor that represents the protagonist"

...yes, that's probably the best way i'm able to describe it (though still not a really good way to describe it overally) - it's the difference between "the main game character represents you (is a placeholder for you) in the game world" and "you represent the main game charcter (you are a placeholder for him) in the game world"

it's really hard to describe, it has nothing to do with choice about story branching, it's more about feeling it. it's the "what character does makes sense for me to do in the game" as opposed to "i have to do it just because the character i play does it".

sadly i can't remember any examples, because when the game does this, treats me as an instrument/as a means to give the character ability to do what the storywriter wanted him to do, i just stop caring about the story at all.

(maybe it's the "me having an agency in the world" as opposed to "the character having an agency i just have to carry out"?)

yeah, lots of words that may all seem to say the same things, but that's just because i don't feel any of it really explains that feeling/difference, so i'm trying over and over again...

...does any of it makes at least a little sense?

Look it can be your story even if you are forced to go a particular path.

This happens to real people all the time, someone join the army or other extreme circumstances whisk them off on an an adventure of which they have little real choice in which way to go. When someone is stranded at sea the only way to survive is to get onto a life boat or dry land, how you get there is up to them but the cruel fact of life is you only have one way forward... or death.

In Half Life 2 does there really need to be an option for "run away and hide from civil war" or "Defect to Combine and screw over all of your friends who trusted you"? Reasonably you are going to keep on the path of opposition to the combine and there is one clear way forwards, in the treacherous world in and around City 17 there seems to only ever be on possible way forwards.

The circumstances are beyond your control, stop blaming the script writer and get in character, blame the element that the scriptwriter put there. It is the Combine who are forcing you on your actions, if you don't ever TRY to suspend your disbelief then that suspension can never be maintained. By actor I mean more the "method acting" if anything, not that you are literally "sure director, you want to make it seem to the audience like this"? No no no NO!

Not that kind of self-conscious acting that looks beyond the fourth wall, thinking about what the game designers want. Suspend your disbelief and think about what the WORLD wants of you. Don't think of it as just pixels and polygons, but soil, walls, sky and people. If you don't SEIZE your role as your own, then you will always be a slave to the role you inhabit, think "what would Gordon Freeman do?" because you are him! DO NOT think "what does Gabe Newall want Gordon to do?"

This is the "role playing" part. I don't think you quite "get" the merging of self and character, it is a tricky one but key thing is you have to be willing to really mould into the role. Take what the role has, add what you can and adjust the character and yourself to fit together. This is what absolutely fascinates me about video games as an art form. Film, novels, poetry and so many others as you to be the admiring observer, though transformational in our observation we are rarely involved and committed, it is mainly connecting with you by the mechanism of empathy. You see a character you can "relate to".

The thing is the Gordon Freeman or Jack/Delta de Bioshock is very much your own self, but always within the mould of the role.

Your familiarity with acting may make acting a bad analogy as your experience may be very much a servant to the role at the whim of an exacting director and you continue that practice in games. Really it is totally different from "acting" in any conventional sense and I wouldn't even be as obtuse as to say that you are the director.

 

[Farther than stars]

For me, it's two words: Unnecesary romance. Seriously.

Unnecessary romance is what kills movies for me and unnecessary sex scenes are what kill novels for me. But as far as video games go, I should say that quite simply inconsistency is what breaks the deal for me. A game can be good with any tone, setting, plot, etc, but the more inconsistencies a game has, the harder immersion becomes.
Oh and bugs. I wouldn't say it's my number one, since I consider myself to be a rather patient person who can put up with a lot of bugs, but the first time I actually had to give up playing a game because of all the bugs was when I tried playing Bioshock on Windows 7. When you're almost at the end and the game has an increadibly cool atmosphere and setting, having to then give up because you can't get it to work anymore is extremely frustrating.
Anyway, that rediculous experience has caused me to give up on the entire series, no matter how lucrative future ones look, because I'd rather stick with good-looking games that aren't just some useless port (can't wait for Saints Row 3).
Come to think of it, I gave up on Batman: Arkham Assylum too for being completely bugged up and because of that I'm not exactly getting a front-row seat to Arkham City. So actually, I wouldn't say that it's inconsistencies, no. It's bugs. Bugs have not only ruined what are supposed to be two of the best gaming experiences of the 200Xs, but also their entire franchise. So yeah, if your games are so buggy that even I with all my patience can't get them to run, you should think long and hard about your QA when porting a game to PC.

 

[spartan231490]

... it's as bad as it can get. But so is an FPS without regenerating health.

Really? anything other than regenerating health is "as bad as it can get" in the category of "the worst thing a game can do"?

FPS games without regenerating health are bad? What crazy shit is this?

Honestly, I meant to say blood on the screen animation. It drives me absolutely bat-shit and gives me headaches.

Truthfully, I don't like non-regenerating health, regenerating health just makes the game flow faster and be more balanced, but it's certainly not game-breaking.

Faster??!??

Sorry, but the problem with rebounding health is how it forces you to run back, hide and stay low.

And it MUST be this way by design as you are carrying around an infinite supply of auto-use health-kits, your health can't recover instantly and your health can't be so large that it never approaches empty in a typical fight. In that way, I feel extremely WEAK with rebounding health. Just a fraction of a second under fire and warning beeps or hyperventilation say I MUST seek cover, and good cover where I won't get even a single HP of damage for 5 seconds!

The thing about a health system using health packs is it can give you a much larger health bar, you can survive far more hits from the enemy before you need to tap-out.

Then of course there is the simple joy of finding something that boost your health, a reward for daring exploration. Rather than health regenerating in cover, a consolation prize for cowardice.

And of course it's not the only way, though lazy developers like those of Duke Nukem Forever sure thought that.

One way that seems obvious for DNF's "ego" basis of health is health recharges with killing the enemy, extra health boos for "overkill" like gibbing and close combat kills. And have a few "on-tap" ego boots like beer or something like that.

I disagree. think about what happens when your health gets low in a non-regen situation. You end up sitting in cover for the whole fight sniping away, or trying to get just close enough to lure one opponent at a time away from the group. The same against large forces. Regenerating health encourage blitzkrieg and geurilla strikes. In and out fast. That's the style I like, not praying I don't lose even 1 hp when fighting this stupid encounter because I don't know if there will be a health pack between me and the next tough section.

With regening health, you don't need to run and run and run to find a health pack when your health gets low either, you just need a few seconds of cover.

 

[MidnightSt]

Treat me not as a PLAYER, but as an ACTOR in its story.

But the acting is part of the play.

When control is wrenched from you for a cutscene or scripted sequence to begin... you are not longer a player or actor, you are forced to suddenly be a passive observer in your own story!

you see, that's the thing... i don't mind being a passive observer in my own story, for a short time, while i watch events i can't and wouldn't possibly be able to influence unfold, but the problem is that most of the games don't feature "my own story" in the first place.

it's a subtle difference i'm probably not able to explain or even define/understand myself properly, but it is there.

it's the difference between playing a game with a story that someone wrote, but i agree with the game that for now it becomes "my own", and playing a game which nags me around every corner that "no, no, no, bad boy, don't you get it, this is NOT your story, this is the story of the game's protagonist, you're just a necessary evil to advance it forward, and you're supposed to be an actor that represents the protagonist"

...yes, that's probably the best way i'm able to describe it (though still not a really good way to describe it overally) - it's the difference between "the main game character represents you (is a placeholder for you) in the game world" and "you represent the main game charcter (you are a placeholder for him) in the game world"

it's really hard to describe, it has nothing to do with choice about story branching, it's more about feeling it. it's the "what character does makes sense for me to do in the game" as opposed to "i have to do it just because the character i play does it".

sadly i can't remember any examples, because when the game does this, treats me as an instrument/as a means to give the character ability to do what the storywriter wanted him to do, i just stop caring about the story at all.

(maybe it's the "me having an agency in the world" as opposed to "the character having an agency i just have to carry out"?)

yeah, lots of words that may all seem to say the same things, but that's just because i don't feel any of it really explains that feeling/difference, so i'm trying over and over again...

...does any of it makes at least a little sense?

Look it can be your story even if you are forced to go a particular path.

This happens to real people all the time, someone join the army or other extreme circumstances whisk them off on an an adventure of which they have little real choice in which way to go. When someone is stranded at sea the only way to survive is to get onto a life boat or dry land, how you get there is up to them but the cruel fact of life is you only have one way forward... or death.

In Half Life 2 does there really need to be an option for "run away and hide from civil war" or "Defect to Combine and screw over all of your friends who trusted you"? Reasonably you are going to keep on the path of opposition to the combine and there is one clear way forwards, in the treacherous world in and around City 17 there seems to only ever be on possible way forwards.

The circumstances are beyond your control, stop blaming the script writer and get in character, blame the element that the scriptwriter put there. It is the Combine who are forcing you on your actions, if you don't ever TRY to suspend your disbelief then that suspension can never be maintained. By actor I mean more the "method acting" if anything, not that you are literally "sure director, you want to make it seem to the audience like this"? No no no NO!

Not that kind of self-conscious acting that looks beyond the fourth wall, thinking about what the game designers want. Suspend your disbelief and think about what the WORLD wants of you. Don't think of it as just pixels and polygons, but soil, walls, sky and people. If you don't SEIZE your role as your own, then you will always be a slave to the role you inhabit, think "what would Gordon Freeman do?" because you are him! DO NOT think "what does Gabe Newall want Gordon to do?"

This is the "role playing" part. I don't think you quite "get" the merging of self and character, it is a tricky one but key thing is you have to be willing to really mould into the role. Take what the role has, add what you can and adjust the character and yourself to fit together. This is what absolutely fascinates me about video games as an art form. Film, novels, poetry and so many others as you to be the admiring observer, though transformational in our observation we are rarely involved and committed, it is mainly connecting with you by the mechanism of empathy. You see a character you can "relate to".

The thing is the Gordon Freeman or Jack/Delta de Bioshock is very much your own self, but always within the mould of the role.

Your familiarity with acting may make acting a bad analogy as your experience may be very much a servant to the role at the whim of an exacting director and you continue that practice in games. Really it is totally different from "acting" in any conventional sense and I wouldn't even be as obtuse as to say that you are the director.

well, damn. i obviously didn't manage to explain what i meant. but i don't think i made such a bad job to be misunderstood so badly. try to read my post once again, if you will, and keep in mind that i am perfectly able and willing of suspension of disbelief, and i'm perfectly okay with playing 100% linear games, the problem lies somewhere else, in an area i have a big BIG difficulty to explain (obviously)...

 

[New Frontiersman]

Bad gameplay, also lots of glitches. That's what I think is worst.

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

The worst thing I game can do is not be good. The games I enjoy, Shadow of the Colossus, Final Fantasy X, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII. To some people those games would be really boring, but to me these are my top 5 games ever.

Games a very opinion based from what we like. I am sure I am going to get hate because I like FF:XIII.

Worst thing I suppose also a game could also do is be like Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Can I change my answer? The worst thing a game can do is cost $60 and not work.

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly?
Portray tall people as superhuman, particularly in strength, for no real reason.
It will almost instantaneously kill a game in my eyes.

It seems people are afraid to make a strong character a regular height or less, because people would somehow not be able to conceive anyone under 6'7", no matter their muscularity, being able to lift anything over the weight of a shortsword or pistol. Also, on the off-chance there is a muscular character thats a regular or short height, theyre never as strong as they should be, (except maybe Chris Redfield? ...but i havent played RE5, so i cant vouch for that) and theyre always at some point, put in their apparent place by a guy with the exact same build, but slightly taller... because how could they possibly hope to fight against somebody whos head is about 5% higher off the ground!? :O

Deus Ex, a game that specifically states that 'Bigger metal arms' are not 'Stronger metal arms', before long, throws you into a fight with a tall guy, who is therefore obviously a tank who just sits there and takes punishment, daring you to venture close to him so his slightly longer arms can tear you in half for no conceivable reason. All because he is slightly taller.
Youre both almost entirely metal from the neck down, youve been going round throwing vendine machines at people, knocking them our for god knows how long with one punch, absorbing bullets and healing without a scratch. But no, slightly-taller-guy beats you hands down on all these fronts of course. Hes obviously the manliest man in this room.
Of course, the only way you can beat him is little electric shocks or throwing gas canisters at him... You couldnt possibly hope to withstand the absolute might of Slightly-Taller-Guy head on!!!

Bull.
Shit.

Well height is important due to dimensions of scaling. Power cube laws, Twice the height means 8x the volume and unless they go down in density then 8x muscle mass, bone and all that which matters for absorbing impacts and dealing blows.

Being just 25% taller with the same proportions you have TWICE the total mass. So two men of same proportions, 5'3" and 6'6" will have a 100% difference in muscle and bone, to spite only 15 inches separating eye height. Now assuming they have moderately the same cybernetic advances in synthetic muscles and hydraulics that will translate to significantly more power. And remember, to tear you apart they don't need arms stronger than your arms, just arms stronger than your vertebrae!

It kinda makes sense how bigger COULD mean stronger.

PS: aren't there loads of examples of slight characters being ridiculously strong, like all the fighting games with female characters, swinging around massive swords?

 

[Dagda Mor]

Be a part of the Final Fantasy franchise.Unless it's the first through sixth ones.

 

[geK0]

-limiting choice

-Having more cinematics than gameplay; I like having a decent storyline in a game, but when the actual gameplay is taking a back seat to the story, it kind of sucks. (ie FFXIII)

-regenerating health; only when it's a matter of hiding behind cover for a few seconds and being good, some games (such as halo) have a pretty good hybrid of limited and regenerating health.

-bad voice acting; some games are just hard to play without muting them because the voices are so annoying... for example; starfox 64.

-invisible walls; they make me angry > : [

-manditory sidegames which are required for continuing the main game. Jack and Daxter was bad for this.

 

[Penumbran Wolf]

It can put it's multiplayer ahead of its main singleplayer. Purely multiplayer games suck. They have no substance. My response to anyone who disagrees with me is "I understand you are entitled to your particular point of view and I respect that, but I also politely request that you consume fecal material and expire."

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Unnecessary simplification.

See: The evolution of World of Warcraft, every recent BioWare game.

Simple is usually good. However, when the simplicity actually takes away from the game and makes it a less customizable or more shallow experience, that's a big problem.

 

[WalkerHill]

The worst ending, punk music and monotone operation.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

Regenerating health

Regenerating health is wonderful when it's necessary.
You can't criticize regenerating health without looking at the problems of medkits and health stations as well.

Necessary? It wouldn't be necessary if there were medkits. Anyway, I just think regen is not as rewarding or exciting as a medkit system. It also makes you hard to kill, which often leads to the game throwing ridiculous amounts of crap at you just to make it challenging, which I do not find enjoyable.

Regenerating health fits more in a fast paced game. How many times have you gone into a game with medkits, you get to a hard bit, and there are no medkits in sight? You're forced to fight enemies or even a boss at ridiculously low health amounts. Now to some, this is a challenge. To others, fun. But to me, it sounds a disadvantage that medkits bring. Now while I don't agree with the effectiveness or realism of sucking your thumb behind a wall to heal, sometimes medkits would make the game harder than it needs to be.

Personally, I liked Resistance 1's halfway of doing health. You have a full health bar. This bar is split into 4 quarters. If your health drops below any of these quarters lines, it will regen up to the closest quarter line, and you must use medkits to fully heal.

 

[StargateSpankyHam]

The worst thing a game can do is have its box art appear on failblog. That's when you know that a game absolutely fails in every way it is theoretically possible to fail.

 

[TheLoneTerran]

Being tedious/boring. Being poorly optimized. And (here's looking at you DA:O) having the supposedly simple task of adding on DLC become a nightmare of self cannibalistic frustration.