Game mechanics that need to die

[immortalfrieza]

Thread title says it all. What game mechanics are around that you don't want to see anymore? It can be a new one or an old one that's still present.

For instance, I am sick of limited inventories. It was justifiable back in the NES/SNES days when games didn't have the data to store more than a certain number of items in players inventories, but these days it's just annoying. It just results in having to stop and sell/drop stuff so you can pick up the newer and probably better stuff all the time. In fact, anything that turns inventory into a management puzzle I've come to hate. The entire Dragon Age series did that despite the fact that there was no reason inventories couldn't be unlimited.

 

[Misterian]

For me, that would be weapon degradation. At least for RPG's

I consider games like Minecraft and Breath of The Wild an exception to this, due to their themes of wilderness and survival, and how it helps keep the tension high. (though I wish The Master Sword in Breath of The Wild didn't have that limited use thing, would've made getting it all the more rewarding.)

But in RPG's like, say The Outer Worlds or Pre-Skyrim Elder Scrolls games, they can just be arbitrarily annoying when you're constantly keeping watch of your equipment's condition and paying money to maintain them, which can feel like an annoying detour.

 

[CriticalGaming]

For me, that would be weapon degradation. At least for RPG's

I consider games like Minecraft and Breath of The Wild an exception to this, due to their themes of wilderness and survival, and how it helps keep the tension high. (though I wish The Master Sword in Breath of The Wild didn't have that limited use thing, would've made getting it all the more rewarding.)

But in RPG's like, say The Outer Worlds or Pre-Skyrim Elder Scrolls games, they can just be arbitrarily annoying when you're constantly keeping watch of your equipment's condition and paying money to maintain them, which can feel like an annoying detour.

Holy shit yes. Weapon degradation can fuck right off. And Breath of the Wild was the worst version of it I have ever seen.

 

[SilentPony]

I'm not sure it should die per se, but a thousand year slumber at the bottom of the ocean wouldn't go amiss. Souls-like. I'm so fucking sick of these games where the central gimmick is that it's hard, and enemies respawn. Is it fun? Its hard. Is there a good story? Its hard.
And 9/10 its a 3rd person melee game where the "hard" is that enemies have lots of health and hit hard. The actual From Software games, Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne in particular are more than just spongey enemy games. Dark Soul 1 eh not so much, From was still trying to work out the designs. Never did Dark Souls 2.
Hard should be a difficulty setting, not the design document. And I know this is controversial but I do think From games should have a difficulty slider, because fuck it who cares? I have more fun exploring the world and fighting little guys than I ever did with the bosses. The bosses were just obstacles to my exploration, like stoplights on a drive. Let it be the player's choice how they want to experience the experience of the game.
And Devs who just think a hard game is an fully realized concept can fuck off. Its the AAA equivalent of Indie Devs just making zombie games because its a lot easier to not program an AI that uses weapons or tactics but just charge with fists and smear red paint on them.

 

[Dalisclock]

For me, that would be weapon degradation. At least for RPG's

I consider games like Minecraft and Breath of The Wild an exception to this, due to their themes of wilderness and survival, and how it helps keep the tension high. (though I wish The Master Sword in Breath of The Wild didn't have that limited use thing, would've made getting it all the more rewarding.)

But in RPG's like, say The Outer Worlds or Pre-Skyrim Elder Scrolls games, they can just be arbitrarily annoying when you're constantly keeping watch of your equipment's condition and paying money to maintain them, which can feel like an annoying detour.

I can't really think of any game where weapon degradation really added anything. Especially since it tends to happen at a ludicrously fast rate or in ways that make no sense(That iron pipe broke because you bashed too many skulls with it..somehow). I know if there's an option to minimize or get rid of it I'd gladly take it.

I can literally one game where it was part of the plot(Balders Gate) and I don't remember if it made the game better or worse because the game was already hard as fuck.

 

[Dreiko]

I can see the argument for weapons degrading as a balancing mechanism and as a way of urging people to try all sorts of weapons and not stick to just the same thing over and over. Though it has to be balanced properly and not be so punishing that all your stuff is constantly broken or so minor that it might as well not be occurring.

 

[laggyteabag]

For me, its mandatory "minigames", either to achieve a goal, or to break up the pacing.

The hacking minigames in BioShock or Mass Effect, or even something like the platforming in DOOM Eternal.

I didn't buy DOOM because I need the gameplay to be paced out with swimming sections. Im here to slay demons.

I didn't buy Mass Effect, so I can match 3 text boxes to open a safe every 20 seconds, im here to stop the reapers.

Games need to have more faith in their gameplay loops.

Im just happy that you could skip these without consequences in the Spider-Man PS4 game. If only you could do the same with the dull stealth sections.

For instance, I am sick of limited inventories. It was justifiable back in the NES/SNES days when games didn't have the data to store more than a certain number of items in players inventories, but these days it's just annoying. It just results in having to stop and sell/drop stuff so you can pick up the newer and probably better stuff all the time. In fact, anything that turns inventory into a management puzzle I've come to hate. The entire Dragon Age series did that despite the fact that there was no reason inventories couldn't be unlimited.

99% agree.

This ties into the encumbrance thread, and I just cannot stand having a tiny inventory, especially in loot-heavy games like Diablo or Borderlands. The only thing that these do, is cause frustration, as you have to dig through your inventory, trying to find the cheapest item to drop, so you can pick up whatever is on the floor. Or even worse, when the inventory is grid-based, and you have to stop slaughtering demons, so you can play Tetris in a menu.

Get it gone.

The only time when a small inventory makes sense is in survival/horror games, where managing your resources is an integral part of the experience.

 

[thebobmaster]

Any game where you have a party, but if the PC dies, it's game over. One of the biggest flaws in Mass Effect as a whole.

 

[BrawlMan]

For me, its mandatory "minigames", either to achieve a goal, or to break up the pacing.

The hacking minigames in BioShock or Mass Effect, or even something like the platforming in DOOM Eternal.

I didn't buy DOOM because I need the gameplay to be paced out with swimming sections. Im here to slay demons.

I didn't buy Mass Effect, so I can match 3 text boxes to open a safe every 20 seconds, im here to stop the reapers.

Games need to have more faith in their gameplay loops.

Im just happy that you could skip these without consequences in the Spider-Man PS4 game. If only you could do the same with the dull stealth sections.

99% agree.

This ties into the encumbrance thread, and I just cannot stand having a tiny inventory, especially in loot-heavy games like Diablo or Borderlands. The only thing that these do, is cause frustration, as you have to dig through your inventory, trying to find the cheapest item to drop, so you can pick up whatever is on the floor. Or even worse, when the inventory is grid-based, and you have to stop slaughtering demons, so you can play Tetris in a menu.

Get it gone.

The only time when a small inventory makes sense is in survival/horror games, where managing your resources is an integral part of the experience.

It's why I like Streets of Rage 4 and The Takeover so much. the former is straightforward and very competent in its gameplay loop. The latter only has two bonus stages that do enough to not outstay their welcome. Though the one level with the "run n' gun" section drags on a bit too much.

Any game that tries to copy the Ubisoft format verbatim.

Any game that's trying to copy Destiny or Borderlands with its loot drops.

Any game that still uses loot boxes. FIFA still uses and abuses them.

Any game copying fortnite or pubg.

 

[meiam]

I can't really think of any game where weapon degradation really added anything. Especially since it tends to happen at a ludicrously fast rate or in ways that make no sense(That iron pipe broke because you bashed too many skulls with it..somehow). I know if there's an option to minimize or get rid of it I'd gladly take it.

I can literally one game where it was part of the plot(Balders Gate) and I don't remember if it made the game better or worse because the game was already hard as fuck.

Fire emblem does (did?) weapon degradation well, combined with limited inventory you had to consider whether or not you should use your really strong weapon keeping in mind that your character would keep using them when attacked until you can change them. Forced you to consider how much you really needed that super weapon now vs later. It was also pretty cool being able to sometime go all out with your strong weapon, rather than always use your best weapon.

I'll stand up for limited inventory space, for one it limit the dev worse instinct of showering the player in 5 bazillions weapons (see Nioh). It's also mainly an attempt to make the world economy work better, if you let player loot everything they will and then they'll sell it all. This means they'll constantly be swimming in so much gold it'll lose all value almost right away, by limiting inventory space you limit that and the economy can work a bit better. The altenative to that is making everything worthless as far as re sell value, and that brings its own sets of problem. This also means that player who explore everything and those that just rush the objective won't be that far apart from a money point of view.

 

[FakeSympathy]

Meaningless collectibles and optional

They have sort of become an essential part of every open-world and semi-open world games. And while some games does this well, most of the time they are time wasters. They are supposed to encourage you to explore every nooks and cranny, and reward you for doing so. However, recently I've come to notice there really isn't much of meaningful rewards, save for some xp.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Turned-based RPGs where you have a party of 4+, but can only have 4 party members per battle. Why? Like what are the others doing while their four friends are potentially dying in combat? This goes double for games that don't immediately allow character switches.*cough* Persona 5 *cough*

 

[Worgen]

I would mostly agree with limited inventories. They do have their place but for the most part they fucken suck. Like in a survival type game or BR game you want a limit since that makes you choose what to take and what to leave.

 

[Dreiko]

Turned-based RPGs where you have a party of 4+, but can only have 4 party members per battle. Why? Like what are the others doing while their four friends are potentially dying in combat? This goes double for games that don't immediately allow character switches.*cough* Persona 5 *cough*

The way persona is structured, you wanna make your party based on the dungeon you're at. Usually, the char who awakens during that bit of the game will be at an elemental advantage with the enemies of the dungeon they awakened at so they are a good first addition, the rest you kinda pick and choose from among your favorites.

By the end of the game, you will wanna pick and choose based on the sorts of persona you have on you as well as on the enemies you're fighting, as well as on the combo super moves in Royal. I didn't use Ryuuji much in the original since his magic was weak so I just handled the Zioing of foes but his combo move with Makoto made me use him a whole lot more in R.


But on a more fundamental sense, Jrpgs do storytelling through combat and the way chars fight acts as characterization so they give you tons of playable chars to characterize them and let you enjoy using them and not just seeing em in cutscenes, in some Jrpgs this is more emphasized with things like party-specific win quotes that differ and have dozens of permutations and things like that. Also, most Jrpgs do usually have some sort of explanation for where the rest of the party is in the lore. Like in trails of cold steel 4 for example (the game has almost 40 party members by the end of it) you are split in mission groups with various sub-parties that you jump to and fro during multi-pronged offensives or chars are dispatched to do things off-screen while you have a smaller group to work with and the group circulates to give everyone some screen time and char development.

 

[laggyteabag]

Fire emblem does (did?) weapon degradation well, combined with limited inventory you had to consider whether or not you should use your really strong weapon keeping in mind that your character would keep using them when attacked until you can change them. Forced you to consider how much you really needed that super weapon now vs later. It was also pretty cool being able to sometime go all out with your strong weapon, rather than always use your best weapon.

This kind of thing is all well and good in theory, but in practice, at least for me, these super powerful "save it for a hard encounter" consumables end up never being used.

Not because im too good at games, or anything like that, but I always wait for that perfect moment to use it... and... it never comes. I could use this super powerful item now, but what if I really need it later? Then, before I know it, i've beaten the game, and that item was just dead weight in my inventory.

I honestly just prefer incremental permanent upgrades, over temporary powerful ones. At least I know I am going to use the permanent boost, at some point.

 

[Dreiko]

This kind of thing is all well and good in theory, but in practice, at least for me, these super powerful "save it for a hard encounter" consumables end up never being used.

Not because im too good at games, or anything like that, but I always wait for that perfect moment to use it... and... it never comes. I could use this super powerful item now, but what if I really need it later? Then, before I know it, i've beaten the game, and that item was just dead weight in my inventory.

I honestly just prefer incremental permanent upgrades, over temporary powerful ones. At least I know I am going to use the permanent boost, at some point.

They're not really consumables in the sense of a megalixir or something like that in fire emblem, they're not gonna just vanish, they just have less uses than the default weapon so you wanna make them count but the game does encourage you to use them and there's no loss for using them too much outside of you dying because you didn't save it for later as you were supposed to. You can think of it like sword ammo, some strong swords have less ammo than others but hit harder and you can't reload so you gotta make your shots count.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Any game where you have a party, but if the PC dies, it's game over. One of the biggest flaws in Mass Effect as a whole.

Yeah that also sucks. It's big in Persona games and Yakuza 7. And the CPU can fuck you over by just targeting everything at the PC before you can do anything about it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

This kind of thing is all well and good in theory, but in practice, at least for me, these super powerful "save it for a hard encounter" consumables end up never being used.

Not because im too good at games, or anything like that, but I always wait for that perfect moment to use it... and... it never comes. I could use this super powerful item now, but what if I really need it later? Then, before I know it, i've beaten the game, and that item was just dead weight in my inventory.

I honestly just prefer incremental permanent upgrades, over temporary powerful ones. At least I know I am going to use the permanent boost, at some point.

I almost never use consumable items in games, unless they are easily obtainable like potions that you can get at any shop for next to nothing. But like I never use combat items like Grenades or special status effect items. I don't know why, but I never think to look in my inventory during a fight just to find some item that might do a little bit of wind damage or some shit to the enemies.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Holy shit yes. Weapon degradation can fuck right off. And Breath of the Wild was the worst version of it I have ever seen.

I'm definitely in the minority, I loved BotW's weapon degradation. It made you change tactics and adapt on the fly, and really consider what you're doing and the best way to approach any given encounter. The apps provided a good baseline to get through almost any encounter as-is with some ingenuity, and most weapons were bonuses.

But I'm also the kind of crazy bastard to look at a Lynel and think to myself, "well I have a stack of octo balloons and a korok leaf, let's see if I can make this work".

...it didn't, by the way.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It made you change tactics and adapt on the fly, and really consider what you're doing and the best way to approach any given encounter.

You know how else you make the player change tactics?

Enemy weaknesses. You don't want them to use a sword the whole time? give enemies shields that blcok all sword damage and forces the player to swap to a hammer.

No game design should ever involve the words "Force the player...." Because a player should never be forced to use a tactic that doesn't agree with their playstyle. To literally offer the gamer options of countless weapons but then deny them the right to chose what they like best is simply a stupid design.

Some players will really enjoy playing with a different item every 10 seconds. But many do not.

Would you have enjoyed the combat more or less if you got to pick the weapons you really enjoy and focus on using those?