Hate list (good read for developers i would think)

[NRP]

I'd have to say Boss Battles and escort missions tend to suck much more often than they succeed. I think the last game with Boss Battles that I enjoyed was Painkiller. Actually, if you count the Scarabs in Halo 3 as Boss Battles, then I enjoyed them too.

Another thing I don't care for is needless "shock value" game play.

Spoiler

Take for example that mission in CoD4 where your Marine character dies after the nuclear explosion. He crawls around for a minute or so and then dies. Other than stupid shock value, what the hell was the purpose of that sequence? I was offended by that sequence.

 

[Skrying]

NRP, wow, if you thought that scene was about shock value then you totally missed the point I think. It's about reality. They could have been like every game and just passed that up and had nothing real about it. You'll notice that you never care in a game when your teammates die, but when its something like how CoD4 did it, THEN you take notice, it hits home much more.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Bosses in FPS's can work, but in general, I'm not a fan. The save point issue is a huge one. They shouldn't be too frequent, but having a save/checkpoint immediately before a boss should be an industry standard by now.

Infinite enemy generation is my #1 pet peeve. It's a cheap, stupid way of making a level hard when either your AI's not good or you can't draw as many enemies as you'd like. Enemy generation within a timed window, like RE4, is fine by me, because you never get the impression that you could stand there for 100 years and the bad guy army would never get depleted.

 

[NRP]

@Skyring
I didn't get that feeling at all, especially given that you swap back and forth between SAS and Marines both before and after that sequence. Perhaps that was because by that time I was already getting a little bored/frustrated by the game play. I just didn't see any point to that sequence other than sensationalism. To me, parts of the game seemed like a desperate rip off of the movie Black Hawk Down. Ultimately, I really didn't care for the SP part of CoD4 at all, and I lost some respect for IW.

 

[Skrying]

@Skyring
I didn't get that feeling at all, especially given that you swap back and forth between SAS and Marines both before and after that sequence. Perhaps that was because by that time I was already getting a little bored/frustrated by the game play. I just didn't see any point to that sequence other than sensationalism. To me, parts of the game seemed like a desperate rip off of the movie Black Hawk Down. Ultimately, I really didn't care for the SP part of CoD4 at all, and I lost some respect for IW.

If you go into the PC games forum you'll quickly see that I've been riping apart the SP of CoD4. That part though I did not get the feeling you did at all.

 

[ninzel]

I don't understand the "bosses don't work in FPS games". All boss fight are,are drawn out versions of other fights in the rest of the game. If the Boss fight doesn't work gameplay wise then the rest of the game must not be working either. Or is it the idea rather than the gameplay that bothers some people?

 

[Hazuki Ryu]

I'd have to say Boss Battles and escort missions tend to suck much more often than they succeed. I think the last game with Boss Battles that I enjoyed was Painkiller. Actually, if you count the Scarabs in Halo 3 as Boss Battles, then I enjoyed them too.

I agree with you there but i don't really see that as a boss its just a big thing u have to take care of i think, but then again thats what bosses are right?Big things you have to take care of lol..

Another thing I don't care for is needless "shock value" game play.

Spoiler

Take for example that mission in CoD4 where your Marine character dies after the nuclear explosion. He crawls around for a minute or so and then dies. Other than stupid shock value, what the hell was the purpose of that sequence? I was offended by that sequence.

I actualy enjoyed that part because of all the effects and the nice graphics.
Dont think theres anything wrong with it.

I do think most escort missions are kind of bad because the IA is bad if the ai was good or if you had better control of it would be great its all just too scripted.

 

[archangelmorph]

Serious great thread..

No I mean it..

& maybe when we're done we can all make a thread where we all complain out of our asses about the things we hate about what YOU do for a living..

/joke

No seriously though..

I see this discussion becoming fruitless and lock-worthy IF individuals qualify there "hates" through reasons which consist merely of "I don't like this because it's shit.." or "I don't like that because it sucks.." without providing any clear logical path towards generating such a conclusion..

If you think something sucks then why does it suck..?

If it's shit then qualify it..!

It says

good read for developrs I would think

in the thread title but so far the thread fails to specify any such reasons for any of us to take these comments seriously IF they rely on nothing but subjectivity and bias.. What does your oppinion about a design choice profit anyone else if plenty of others don't share it for example..? (one man's junk is another man's treasure after all..)

If this thread isn't providing sound and logical rhetoric with respect to unfavourable design choices & simply doing nothing more then filling pages with lists of personal tastes and preferences then I fail to see how it's a good read for anybody..?

However I'd like to say that quite a few good arguements have been made so if the thread can produce more of those from here on out then it might end up a pretty good read.. However I don't really think any or most of us devs who frequent this forum are going to benefit from half of the complaints made here for a number of reasons..:-

1) we're mostly engineers and artists & therefore don't get much of a say in the design decision-making anyways..

2) most of the points made here are either already known or widely accepted/shared & therefore aren't "teaching" developers anything then haven't already heard/read/thought about before.. Those of us who use internal & external QAs, focus tests & plenty of other avenues for picking up these kinds of issues have likely encountered them before & if they haven't been fixed then it's likely been due to a lack of time/resources or thorough testing over any negligence in the form of designers neglecting to realise it would/could be a problem.. (don't forget, many of us have been making games since well before alot of gamers today have been playing them & so it's pretty likely a thing or two has been picked up along the way..)

I'm not trying to belittle any of the points made here because it's pretty clear from alot of designers i've met during my time in the industry that they're not quite all as accomplished in game design theory as they could/should be however alot of mishaps in that respect come as the result of a lack experience or a lack of thorough enough forethought into the implications of other design choices made (with games as huge and complex as they are today, it becomes increasingly difficult to consider every possibly effect of a adding/removing a particular feature from a design..) So in this respect I'm just trying to help Kzin understand that as much as you may think anyone may "learn" from this thread, it's likely going to have little impact in the grand scheme of things..

Lastly I hope it's ok for me to make a few contributions..? (as amazing as this may sound, some of us are gamers too! )


My Gaming Pet Peeves



- The "Swarm" enemy type - from the bugs in extermination to the skeleton-like-dogs in Serious Sam, these little critters insist on finding their way into a multitude of shooters which I tend to find increasingly annoying from one title to the next. It's the sheer lack of AI which is somehow expected to be made fun by placing hundreds on the screen and have them come at you in one huge frantic swarm which makes them so frustrating, & like the introduction of the flood in the Halo series for example, really ruins the game flow of strategic and tactical firefights which quickly degenerate into run-n-gun-hop-n-pop-style bouts leaving you with virtually no time to think, & force you to rely wholly on motor reflexes which, on consoles can be severely hampered at times by control responsiveness and analogue stick-based accuracy issues..

- The Giant Creature Cliche - how many times must we see, time and time again, a severe lack of originality and innovation in game design when, at the start of that shiny new next gen RPG, you walk into the first dungeon, unsheathing your sword, only to find that same old boring genetically malfunctioned, gigantism-suffering rats, spiders & bugs that we've been fighting for years since the days of the Atari, are just waiting to recieve release from their miserable lives of bondage once more..? Isn't it just better to let them rest in peace rather than continuing to resurrect the little frankensteins over and over again in some tired quest to see them live long enough to witness our beloved Christ's second coming..? Can't we just replace them with something else..? a four armed badger for instance..? a ninja-trained bushbaby..? an octo-croc..?
[NOTE: giant mutant deformed rat-people in Jade Empire being an exception as they were so damn awesome/freaky/interesting..]

- The Western Husky Bald-Headed Hulking Caucasian Hero Cliche - I wouldn't say I hate it, & I can see why it's such a recurring theme being something that seems to go down well nowadays in a market dominated by 20-40 year old americans who grew up on the likes of He-man cartoons & Arnie movies.. However! It would be *nice* to see some more progress being made in the area of developing games with a protagonist (heck do we even NEED the player to always be a "hero" anyway?) that's not so conventional..

A 16 year old nerd for example..? An abused housewife..? A 90 year old drunk..? an [insert social addiction here] addict?

I can probably think of some more but I've got to be up early for work tomorrow..



Peace

 

[JacksBleedingEyes]

Sorry but I have to disagree with almost every point mentioned. I have had great experiences in almost every single one of those instances you mention as bad design choices.

I think you might have a pet peeve with the way it is implemented in a specific title, and thats fine, some developers manage to ruin a perfectly good title like this.

 

[archangelmorph]

Sorry but I have to disagree with almost every point mentioned. I have had great experiences in almost every single one of those instances you mention as bad design choices.

I think you might have a pet peeve with the way it is implemented in a specific title, and thats fine, some developers manage to ruin a perfectly good title like this.

You like the flood & giant rats?

 

[Kzin]

I see this discussion becoming fruitless and lock-worthy IF individuals qualify there "hates" through reasons which consist merely of "I don't like this because it's shit.." or "I don't like that because it sucks.." without providing any clear logical path towards generating such a conclusion..

I thought I did explain the reasons for my hatred. Well, atleast for most of it... I´ve explained my thoughts on bossbattles in fpses in later posts.

Well, i never thought this thread would change much, I was more like hoping. But as Im talking to a developer now maybe this is my chance to make a difference in the world. If any designer on any project you might be working on decides it might be a good idea to not have any mid-level saves or to put the checkpoint 5 minutes before the boss (for example, as I think we all can agree on those), then do whatever it takes man! Whatever it takes.

I just rememberd one more I wanna ad to my hate list. Not being able to skip cutscenes (when its not the first playtrough).

 

[Kzin]

About bosses in fpses, in arcady games like serious sam, painkiller etc they might work. Im personaly not into those kinds of games. I like shooters with a litle more strategic gameplay (rainbow six vega, halo, etc). Bosses in these kinds of games suck for two reasons.

1) Often the gameplay changes. What I like about shooters is using different tactics, ducking behind cover, flanking the enemy etc. Often the gameplay changes to circle strafing and pattern memorization. Its like you would ram opponents and using boost in all the finals in a gran turismo game.

2) Games like these often try to create the illusion of a belivable, real world. That the world feels real and beliveble is important for immersion and the narrative. (Might the first person perspective put higher demands on the "realness" of that world compared to a 3rd person game?) This illusion shatters the moment you have to fight some boss.

Im not quite sure on my definition of "boss". For some reason I dont realy consider the scarabs in halo3 to be bosses, but i consider tartarus and the profet in halo 2 to be bosses. Maybe it has to do with how beliveble they are in the gameworld. In some way I can buy that the covenant have a big walking robot tank with a weak spot in the back. But I cant buy that the only way to kill the profet is to jump up on his chair and punch him, and that you have do it three times. The stronger enemies like the elites cant take a beating like that, and the prophets are supposed to be fragile. All the time you´re doing this elites endlessly enter the building and attack you, but the endless suply of elites stop the moment you kill the prophet. Tartarus is on some structure wich seem to be built just so you can have a boss fight on it. Three platforms and an anti gravity elevator in the middle.

 

[macabre]

I hate time limits.
I understand that sometimes it adds a bit more energy and excitement, but it really sucks when it`s overdone or even main part of the gameplay (Pursuit Force, ugh) .I don`t mind short limits for puzzles etc like in Ratchet. COD4 is about the upper limit I would accept in a game.

 

[Daozang]

But I cant buy that the only way to kill the profet is to jump up on his chair and punch him, and that you have do it three times.

I don't remember having to kill the prophet that way... I think that I killed him with guns... But it's been a lot of time...
Even so, I'm sure it was done for cinematic reasons. For many people that is more important than realism that is nowhere to be found in the strict sense in games anyway... Even in "realistic" games you have to take a few bullets before you get six feet under... And in this case we are talking about a game were you shoot cute little thingies that my girlfriend would like to hug...
If a feature/sequence is broken in terms of gameplay (frustrating, unplayable, completly unnecesary), then I agree, but everything else depends on anyones taste.

I will only agree to a certain degree about escort missions. Usually there is nothing changing in the way you play the game, but you have to backtrack every now and then to tell the NPC to follow you...
That could get better if there were many scripted sequences along the way. I don't think that the AI could handle it anyother way.

 

[quest55720]

Some of mine are the over use of FMV or cut scenes. I have been turned off by many RPGs since the PS1 era. I just don't want to sit through 20 minutes of cut scenes unless it is the end of the game. Xenogears is the worst offender there were times it felt like I had to watch a video for a half hour. Also in RPGs making the characters skill sets to similar or items that allow characters to have all the same spells and skills. FF7 was the worst offender here all my crew had the same exact spells and skills because of the materia system. I like have to think carefully how I assemble my party in an RPG mixing characters of different skill sets.

Racing games number one is freaking rubber band AI crap. Nothing makes me more mad when I run a perfect race in an arcade racer to make a little mistake at the end and lose because the computer caught up out of no where. The burn out series is the worst offender. It is so bad in the burn out games I only play them for the crash junction/take down modes. The racing modes are insanely frustrating because of the rubber band AI. I can completely take out an opponent and 2 seconds later he is on my tail waiting for my one mistake.

One for any type of game. To large of jumps in difficulty level. Guitar hero series is the worst offender here. The jump from easy to medium is perfect. The jump from medium to hard is just insane. Instead of 4 modes the game should of had 5 to help players who are not insanely good at the game. There is no way they should of added the orange button and the speed up of the scrolling chart. It should be like this easy 3 buttons, novice 4 buttons, medium 5 buttons, hard 5 + speed up of the chart, expert more complex charts.

Another thing is when a certain type of game play is intentionally gimped. Dead rising while a brilliant awesome game is the offender that comes to mind. They complete nailed the mellee combat. Then they completely gimp/nerf the gun play to the point were guns are almost useless.

This one is a frustration of 2 generations. Developers who refuse to learn from and take what the competition does best. What I am talking about is wrestling games in NA. I have not purchased a wrestling game since no mercy on the N64. The N64 wrestling engine of the AKI games was well pretty much perfect. When the license rights went somewhere else the new developers refused to learn and expand what AKI had done. Instead they try to go in a totally different direction which is pretty much crap. It is kind of funny and sad that the most excited I have been in months is the EGM rumor section that stated that no mercy might come to the wii virtual console.

 

[V3]

I don't have that many, but I hate having to unlock the most difficult setting in a game by completing it in an easier difficulty setting. Don't waste my time and give me the your most difficult setting, in most cases I won't find it to be that difficult anyway.

In game tutorials, I hate them. There should be seperate sections, like new game, tutorials, options, etc.

Others like bad framerate, bad game system mechanic, but these are obvious.

 

[archangelmorph]

Well, i never thought this thread would change much, I was more like hoping. But as Im talking to a developer now maybe this is my chance to make a difference in the world. If any designer on any project you might be working on decides it might be a good idea to not have any mid-level saves or to put the checkpoint 5 minutes before the boss (for example, as I think we all can agree on those), then do whatever it takes man! Whatever it takes.

Hehehe Yes Sir!! [salute]

Im not quite sure on my definition of "boss". For some reason I dont realy consider the scarabs in halo3 to be bosses, but i consider tartarus and the profet in halo 2 to be bosses. Maybe it has to do with how beliveble they are in the gameworld. In some way I can buy that the covenant have a big walking robot tank with a weak spot in the back.

Do you consider the Colossi in SOTC bosses then?

Do you hate them too?

 

[Kzin]

I don't remember having to kill the prophet that way... I think that I killed him with guns... But it's been a lot of time...
Even so, I'm sure it was done for cinematic reasons. For many people that is more important than realism that is nowhere to be found in the strict sense in games anyway... Even in "realistic" games you have to take a few bullets before you get six feet under... And in this case we are talking about a game were you shoot cute little thingies that my girlfriend would like to hug...
If a feature/sequence is broken in terms of gameplay (frustrating, unplayable, completly unnecesary), then I agree, but everything else depends on anyones taste.

Havent played halo 2 that much myself either, but I have only killed the prophet by jumping his chair. I rember shooting at him forever with no effect first.

Anyway, Im not talking about games having to be realistic like in the real world were one bullet would kill you. The gameworld should in itself be beliveble. The gameworld should follow its own rules so to speak. I find it diffucult to express these things in english but i hope you understand what I mean.

Even though halo universe isnt a completly realistic world since ordanary humans can tak quite a few hits before dying, they dont get gradualy get hurt but insted die after the last health point, I still get drawn into the world and find it belivable. Forerunner structures are usualy built so that it lookes like they have a purspose etc. When they throw in a boss and that boss serves the same function and behaves like a boss from a mario game, and if even the level is designe like a boss stage I just dont feel the same immersion.

I will only agree to a certain degree about escort missions. Usually there is nothing changing in the way you play the game, but you have to backtrack every now and then to tell the NPC to follow you...
That could get better if there were many scripted sequences along the way. I don't think that the AI could handle it anyother way.

Well, done that way they could work. But to often the npc you are protecting are running all over the place.

 

[Kzin]

Racing games number one is freaking rubber band AI crap. Nothing makes me more mad when I run a perfect race in an arcade racer to make a little mistake at the end and lose because the computer caught up out of no where.

Totaly agree. I hated the hoverboard races in ratchet and clank partly because of that. If you have rubberband AI, why have a race in the first place? You never get the satisfaction of totaly beating the competition, and it doesnt matter how good you race except at couple of places.

 

[Kzin]

Do you consider the Colossi in SOTC bosses then?

Do you hate them too?

I dont always hate bosses, in some type of games they fit perfectly. SOTC is built around boss gameplay. They are brilliantly made, they fit the premise and narrative of the game wonderful.

The question of weather or not they are bosses is irelevant as they fit the game both from a gameplay standpoint and a narrative standpoint.

Do you think a boss fight would fit in a game like COD? Some armour wearing general with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. The only way to kill him would be to lure him under a building and then take down a pillar with a greanade or rpg so the ceiling came down on him. After that he would stand around dizzy for a few seconds and you would have to shoot him in the eye with a sniper riffle. After completing this procedure three times he would die.