archangelmorph
Veteran
I think that scenario would be quite fun!!
No but seriously though.. I agree that Bosses aren't suited for every game.. But it doesn't make them *generally* bad.. Just bad when they are inappropriately implemented..
Hate list (good read for developers i would think)
- Thread starter Kzin
- Start date
I think that scenario would be quite fun!!
No but seriously though.. I agree that Bosses aren't suited for every game.. But it doesn't make them *generally* bad.. Just bad when they are inappropriately implemented..
Certain pet peeves enumerated in this thread require more explanation, as others pointed out earlier. To say that you dislike *random game mechanic #4574* because you don't like it is not reason enough to be discussion worthy.
I understand that most folks tend to dislike certain game mechanics, in fact I'm not sure anyone could claim to find interest in each and every video game mechanic ever used by game designers. What can make such a topic interesting would be the intricate reasons why you do not appreciate a certain thing in a game and under what circumstances.
When I talk about circumstances, I'm indeed talking about the context in which the pet peeves kicks in. For instance, hating stealth mission in games that are not built around stealth, is not the same as hating stealth as an entire genre.
With that said, many of the pet peeves people expressed in this thread are well known, such as the dreaded escort missions, etc. What surprised me, though, is the hate people had toward "Boss fights" in FPS, and honestly, this sounds kind of new to me, so more replies on this would make a good read. Anyone interested in detailing what's so wrong with boss fights that is so peculiar to the first person shooting environment?
On an amusing side note, on the topic of escort missions, the evil folks at Rare, responsible for one of the most hated escort mission of all time (in Goldeneye N64, passing that level in secret and 00 agent difficulty was a chore and a test for anyone's nerves), had a running gag during Perfect Dark Zero in the form of a poster, plastered here and there, that said "I love escort missions", or something along those lines. It showed that at least the Rare folks have humour about that specific part of some of their FPS and understood that many a folk loathed these... They still implemented some escort stuff in PDZ, though. It wasn't anywhere as hard as the Goldeneye one, obviously.
I understand that most folks tend to dislike certain game mechanics, in fact I'm not sure anyone could claim to find interest in each and every video game mechanic ever used by game designers. What can make such a topic interesting would be the intricate reasons why you do not appreciate a certain thing in a game and under what circumstances.
When I talk about circumstances, I'm indeed talking about the context in which the pet peeves kicks in. For instance, hating stealth mission in games that are not built around stealth, is not the same as hating stealth as an entire genre.
With that said, many of the pet peeves people expressed in this thread are well known, such as the dreaded escort missions, etc. What surprised me, though, is the hate people had toward "Boss fights" in FPS, and honestly, this sounds kind of new to me, so more replies on this would make a good read. Anyone interested in detailing what's so wrong with boss fights that is so peculiar to the first person shooting environment?
On an amusing side note, on the topic of escort missions, the evil folks at Rare, responsible for one of the most hated escort mission of all time (in Goldeneye N64, passing that level in secret and 00 agent difficulty was a chore and a test for anyone's nerves), had a running gag during Perfect Dark Zero in the form of a poster, plastered here and there, that said "I love escort missions", or something along those lines. It showed that at least the Rare folks have humour about that specific part of some of their FPS and understood that many a folk loathed these... They still implemented some escort stuff in PDZ, though. It wasn't anywhere as hard as the Goldeneye one, obviously.
.Melchiah.
Regular
Some irritating game mechanics, flaws and missing features;
Too limited inventory space, that forces you to travel back and forth the game world; Resident Evil 1-3 & CVX, Silent Hill 4.
Inconsistent and illogical inventory system; in Metal Gear Solid, you couldn't use a key card to open a door without taking your gasmask off, in a room filled with POISON GAS.
Unkillable enemies that follow you around certain areas, thus making exploring the areas a pain in the ass; Silent Hill 4.
Active cutscenes where a player has to press buttons at certain points during cutscenes or face certain death; Resident Evil 4, Jericho, Heavenly Sword. Nothing is more fun than to repeat the same thing over and over again, because you just happened to press a wrong button or pressed it 0,1 seconds too late.
Console FPS games without support for keyboard and mouse. Why not make the games playable for everyone? Some of us just can't play FPS games with a pad.
No split screen two player mode in a racing game; MotorStorm. No AI controlled cars in two player mode in a DEMOLITION racing game; FlatOut 1 & 2.
Too limited inventory space, that forces you to travel back and forth the game world; Resident Evil 1-3 & CVX, Silent Hill 4.
Inconsistent and illogical inventory system; in Metal Gear Solid, you couldn't use a key card to open a door without taking your gasmask off, in a room filled with POISON GAS.
Unkillable enemies that follow you around certain areas, thus making exploring the areas a pain in the ass; Silent Hill 4.
Active cutscenes where a player has to press buttons at certain points during cutscenes or face certain death; Resident Evil 4, Jericho, Heavenly Sword. Nothing is more fun than to repeat the same thing over and over again, because you just happened to press a wrong button or pressed it 0,1 seconds too late.
Console FPS games without support for keyboard and mouse. Why not make the games playable for everyone? Some of us just can't play FPS games with a pad.
No split screen two player mode in a racing game; MotorStorm. No AI controlled cars in two player mode in a DEMOLITION racing game; FlatOut 1 & 2.
archangelmorph
Veteran
Tens of millions of console gamers who bought, played and enjoyed every console FPS released to date prove that they are "playable for everyone" in the most generic sense..
& I highly doubt trying to use a keyboard & mouse on your lap, on the coach in front of a TV will make the experience anymore playable either..
I'd guess it'd be at least as popular for those who buy the VGA cable (for the 360 at least). Of course, how popular the VGA cable is up in the air...
archangelmorph
Veteran
I'd guess it'd be at least as popular for those who buy the VGA cable (for the 360 at least). Of course, how popular the VGA cable is up in the air...
Well i've got one which I use to play my 360 games on my monitor..
However the lack of keyboard & mouse support has never made me complain when playing FPSs like Halo & Bioshock, whose pacing and balance make gamepad use far from a hinderance to play...
I only agree with this part of your post. Does that make sense at all? I do understand that they want you to go through the trouble of finding it but once you do they should just make it so that he puts the gas mask on as soon as he enters an area with poison. It shouldn't even be an inventory option really.
One of my pet peeves is that many JRPGs don't have a save anywhere option. Designers should understand that many gamers are people who have to work and/or have deal with college studies. Many of us don't have time to play for hours before we reach a save point. I know that alot of people knocked Enchanted Arms but one thing I loved about it was that I could save at any point in the game. I didn't have to set aside hours of my day just to make sure I would be able to reach save after I just finished leveling up and have gotten through some crucial points in the game.
I think this is also part of the reason why handheld gaming seems to just be getting bigger over time especially in Japan. Handheld games seem to be designed so that you can save after just a few minutes of play. With everyone being so busy now of days no wonder why people are flocking to handhelds. Just to give an example, I bought Diseaga: Afternoon of Darkness a week ago (the 4th game I bought for the system since I got it at launch.) and what I really like about it is that when your playing the main story each stage within the level or episode seems to last at about 5 minutes and once you are done with a stage you can go back and save. I've able to actually put in alot of playtime because I can just go back to it when ever I feel like and I've only been playing the game at home.
Now I do have my problems with Item World which requires you to go through 10 stages to you level up the item and it won't let you go back and save unless you have an exit item. If you don't have one and you need to stop playing you are pretty much screwed like many other RPGs. The good thing about playing it on the PSP though is that if you flick power switch the game goes into standby mode and as long the battery still has power you can start exactly where you left off. Unfortunately that option isn't available on
the 360 in which I am still working on finishing BD because of playtime issues.*
*Just in case someone says something you can only save in BD when you are either at a save point or during the overworld(looking down at you character from a birds eye(god) view. You cannot save anywhere when playing through the regular 3rd person view stages. It's better than most but still not as good as saving anywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
JacksBleedingEyes
Regular
Actually I'm happy with most game aspects. Yes certain games do no implement them correctly.
If I said I had one pet peeve then it would be the exponential increase in difficulty some games provide.
Some games just require you to be an expert straight away if you want to succeed.
I'm not saying that Assassins Creed is a difficult game but for example, in the fight system they require you to time your hits perfectly if you expect to counter. There is no other mode of countering and if you have problem with timings, well the fighting can be pretty boring.
I want a game that offers logarithmic progression in skill not exponential. So that we can all reach a suitable point fairly quickly and yet the masters will always have a slight edge. Hell even make it linear, but most games these days are exponentially in terms of time vs skill.
My other problem sometimes occurs with Mario Party style games. Actually no, just Mario Party. It's too fucking random. I get that it's a board game, but when a board game requires no fucking skill whatsoever that is when it gets annoying. You get a start for having the least amount of stars (wtf).
The reward system is just too ....stupid is the only word that comes to mind.
Now I'm sure that some people have mastered it and seen every optimization to it. I however am not that patient. If the solution is not obvious in a game it mostly require some degree of logical thinking. But when a game has no degree of logical thinking to solving its puzzles and it's just randomness mixed with memorization, that my dear friends is a waste of fucking time. One might argue, "but hey once you remember all the patterns it is a matter of strategy". Sorry but its still a waste of fucking time.
Which brings me to my point, maybe something developers will bring on board. If you make a game, make it logical, use as little memorization as possible and make it progressively more difficult and always allow more then one way to approach a situation. Not all games will fall in this category, but a lot of games do and they are linear as fuck.
If I said I had one pet peeve then it would be the exponential increase in difficulty some games provide.
Some games just require you to be an expert straight away if you want to succeed.
I'm not saying that Assassins Creed is a difficult game but for example, in the fight system they require you to time your hits perfectly if you expect to counter. There is no other mode of countering and if you have problem with timings, well the fighting can be pretty boring.
I want a game that offers logarithmic progression in skill not exponential. So that we can all reach a suitable point fairly quickly and yet the masters will always have a slight edge. Hell even make it linear, but most games these days are exponentially in terms of time vs skill.
My other problem sometimes occurs with Mario Party style games. Actually no, just Mario Party. It's too fucking random. I get that it's a board game, but when a board game requires no fucking skill whatsoever that is when it gets annoying. You get a start for having the least amount of stars (wtf).
The reward system is just too ....stupid is the only word that comes to mind.
Now I'm sure that some people have mastered it and seen every optimization to it. I however am not that patient. If the solution is not obvious in a game it mostly require some degree of logical thinking. But when a game has no degree of logical thinking to solving its puzzles and it's just randomness mixed with memorization, that my dear friends is a waste of fucking time. One might argue, "but hey once you remember all the patterns it is a matter of strategy". Sorry but its still a waste of fucking time.
Which brings me to my point, maybe something developers will bring on board. If you make a game, make it logical, use as little memorization as possible and make it progressively more difficult and always allow more then one way to approach a situation. Not all games will fall in this category, but a lot of games do and they are linear as fuck.
The "hate list item" I'd like to add is sort of a meta-pet peeve:
Features that are blatantly used to cover up/ameliorate otherwise crappy game design.
Most prominent example:
Quick Save. (Yeah, I know - ooooh, how controversial!)
I just hate it when a game would be outright unfair and frustrating (!= difficult) if there were no quicksave.
You know, games where enemies can kill you before you can even see or react to them, so the only way is Quicksave - move along into certain death while memorizing enemy positions - quickload...etc.
Or games that feature fatality-prone challenges - usually extensive platform sequences - but without offering adequate controls/having flawed controls (like bad camera, bad collision detection, bad steering precision etc.).
If a game is only bearable when there's quicksave - no, let me rephrase that: If a game became unbearable if you removed the quicksave, chances are something is seriously wrong.
Another example: Dumbing down the difficulty not because the game itself was too difficult/unfair, but b/c of other design issues.
NWN2 being my latest example (I have the feeling I mentioned it before somewhere else on these boards...),
especially the final few levels/battles (finished it last week).
At that point it became painfully obvious that the rather forgiving ruleset for default difficulty was no "catering to the masses" but simple neccessity to keep the game playable.
Trying to play those battles on high difficulty (which is the only difficulty where e.g. friendly Area Spells can hurt your party etc., i.e. where at least some kind of advanced tactics would be called for, alas only in theory) is just laughable when e.g. you have difficulties to see where your party members are most of the time between all those spell effects... And don't get me started on Party control/AI.
Features that are blatantly used to cover up/ameliorate otherwise crappy game design.
Most prominent example:
Quick Save. (Yeah, I know - ooooh, how controversial!
)I just hate it when a game would be outright unfair and frustrating (!= difficult) if there were no quicksave.
You know, games where enemies can kill you before you can even see or react to them, so the only way is Quicksave - move along into certain death while memorizing enemy positions - quickload...etc.
Or games that feature fatality-prone challenges - usually extensive platform sequences - but without offering adequate controls/having flawed controls (like bad camera, bad collision detection, bad steering precision etc.).
If a game is only bearable when there's quicksave - no, let me rephrase that: If a game became unbearable if you removed the quicksave, chances are something is seriously wrong.
Another example: Dumbing down the difficulty not because the game itself was too difficult/unfair, but b/c of other design issues.
NWN2 being my latest example (I have the feeling I mentioned it before somewhere else on these boards...),
especially the final few levels/battles (finished it last week).
At that point it became painfully obvious that the rather forgiving ruleset for default difficulty was no "catering to the masses" but simple neccessity to keep the game playable.
Trying to play those battles on high difficulty (which is the only difficulty where e.g. friendly Area Spells can hurt your party etc., i.e. where at least some kind of advanced tactics would be called for, alas only in theory) is just laughable when e.g. you have difficulties to see where your party members are most of the time between all those spell effects...
And don't get me started on Party control/AI..Melchiah.
Regular
That's exactly why I hated the active cutscenes in Resident Evil 4, especially the knife fight with Krauser. Trying to get past the cutscenes by trial and error was as entertaining as playing D on PSone, or Dragon's Lair on Amiga 500. It's one of those game mechanics that should've been left behind.
You just explained why Mario Party is popular. People who are bad at video games can play them and still not come in last. People who are really good still do have an edge and win more often than not, but it's random enough that everyone has fun.
About bosses in FPS's...
Bosses "work" in games when the game is structured in such a way that
a) The structure of the game/level is fulfilled by the boss.
b) The boss makes sense within the game's universe and gameplay mechanics.
IMO, modern realistic FPS's are inherently designed in such a way that bosses do neither. In real life, there is no such thing as a person with tons of hit points that takes several rockets to finally take down. You can kill the toughest Marine in the USA with one bullet. Further, the substance of an FPS is found in the tactics, the exploration of the environment, pacing and so on. A boss battle is inevitably some kind of arena fight, so it doesn't really fulfill the game design at all.
Boss battles work in arcade shooters like Serious Sam, because those games are at heart basically 3-D versions of SHMUPs like Raiden and Dodon Pachi. They work in games like Metroid Prime, because adventure games are structured around seeking out bosses in order to acquire the items and gear necessary to complete your quest..
They don't work in anything supposed to be realistic.
Bosses "work" in games when the game is structured in such a way that
a) The structure of the game/level is fulfilled by the boss.
b) The boss makes sense within the game's universe and gameplay mechanics.
IMO, modern realistic FPS's are inherently designed in such a way that bosses do neither. In real life, there is no such thing as a person with tons of hit points that takes several rockets to finally take down. You can kill the toughest Marine in the USA with one bullet. Further, the substance of an FPS is found in the tactics, the exploration of the environment, pacing and so on. A boss battle is inevitably some kind of arena fight, so it doesn't really fulfill the game design at all.
Boss battles work in arcade shooters like Serious Sam, because those games are at heart basically 3-D versions of SHMUPs like Raiden and Dodon Pachi. They work in games like Metroid Prime, because adventure games are structured around seeking out bosses in order to acquire the items and gear necessary to complete your quest..
They don't work in anything supposed to be realistic.
.Melchiah.
Regular
That kind of game mechanic certainly fits for a family friendly multiplayer party game, but not so much for a mature single player game. The former has short mini-games where you compete against someone. Whereas the latter is all about completing the game and moving the story forward, and this kind of game mechanics only frustrate for stalling the progression.