Gaming pet peeves.

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

 

[maninahat]

When either

a) in a cutscene, your character does a cool fight in which they show off loads of cool moves you aren't able to do during the actual game play, because the game can't trust you to be that awesome.

b) in a cutscene, your character does something incredibly stupid you would have easily avoided during the actual game play, because the game can't trust you to be a complete moron.

 

[WeepingAngels]

When you fight a boss who has shitloads of HP and some really cool attacks but when you beat and recruit them, they are level 1 with none of the cool attacks they used on you. Diablos comes to mind in FF8.

 

[cojo965]

Nighttime levels in multiplayer, and everyone is wearing dark clothing.

Battlefield: Hardline is especially bad about this because in the nighttime maps everyone is an indistinct black blob in a world populated entirely by indistinct black blobs, so I can't see the guys I'm supposed to be shooting very well.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

1. Make it play like Arma. 2. Dont put that scene in the game. Use a different weapon or tool or use a scenario no-one could survive, I.E.point blank and to the temple.

Those sound like compromises to me.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing.

I get that narrative is often the enemy of gameplay. But developers should be taking steps to make the transition from playable to non-playable sections as seamless as possible, not have them occupy seemingly parallel universes with different sets of physics.

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

You dont have to compromise either as long as you actually use your fucking brain about it.

Ok, give us an example. For instance, should a Phoenix Down have brought Aeris back, should Phoenix Down's simply not exist in the game to solve this conflict or what is your non compromising answer?

Phoenux downs cant bring the dead back to live. They're a powerful healing item beyond any potion that brings a person back from unconsciousness. Ever notice how in most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs if you finish a battle with "dead" party members they'll often be alive again with only 1 HP in the world screen without having to use any items?

Just change any reference to being dead when you hit 0 HP to something like "Unconscious" or "KO." The story remains completely unchanged, and the gameplay is functionally identical.

Boom.

Yes, I believe Square has said this when people asked about the inconsistency. I am not buying it but I also don't give a shit about realism. Well I take that back, I hate when realism ruins gameplay but otherwise I don't give a shit about it.

Anyway, how about a shooter where a character can take an infinite amount of bullets but that one shot in a cutscene does you in.

I just think that altering gameplay to make it more consistent with the cutscenes (ie, make it more realistic) is a bad idea. I mean, are we really going to complain about realism after using Bolt 3 for the hundredth time?

1. Make it play like Arma. 2. Dont put that scene in the game. Use a different weapon or tool or use a scenario no-one could survive, I.E.point blank and to the temple.

Those sound like compromises to me.

What, am I supposed to change games without changing them at all? Define 'Compromises.'

It's really not that hard. You just have to think a little about what you're writing and how it fits into the context of the game mechanics. It just rarely happens since most videogame writers are morons and 3rd rate hacks, though thankfully that's beginning to change a bit.

I wasn't the one who said that it could be done without compromises. I know you will either have to compromise the story or the gameplay when you start going down the "oh no, the cutscenes are inconsistent with the gameplay, fix it!" path.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Protagonist/NPCs never shutting up

I've played a few games in my time where the player character, or their friend, the antagonist or whatever just never shut the fuck up. This made Borderlands really difficult to get through for me because the adherance to a massive quantity of jokes made most missions really tiresome. Sometimes I just want to focus on the gameplay and the incredibly dangerous situation the PC is in instead of listening the Vault Hunter/Nathan Drake/Horizon: Zero Dawn Lady making quips.

Forced walking

When games force you to walk around at a snails pace to show you their story. Even bloody Platinum, the team known for non-stop action pulled this shit. It makes repeat playthroughs incredibly jarring (the main reason why I'm finding it hard to continue my second playthrough of TLoU), and even on first playthroughs you sometimes just want some freedom.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Characters reminding you hurry up, or constantly giving the same one or two hints like clockwork. It's annoying enough not being able to crack the code or find your poorly placed door switch or what have you, I don't need to be reminded of it every few seconds. The Batman: Arkham games love doing this, which is absurd because it's Batman thinking to himself.

Seconding the Arkham example, although on a grander scale. City and Knight are both supposed to take place during one night, and at the end of said night shit is hitting the fan, yet both games feature way over 12 or so hours of content. It was jarring hearing "Protocol 9 (or something else, I can't remember) will activate in 3 hours" when, in reality, 3 hours later I was doing side quests and had barely even advanced the story. When games make day/night shorter than they are it's fine, but when games make simply based on where the character is in the story (Infamous: SS is a bad offender of this) it just breaks immersion.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Forced walking

When games force you to walk around at a snails pace to show you their story. Even bloody Platinum, the team known for non-stop action pulled this shit. It makes repeat playthroughs incredibly jarring (the main reason why I'm finding it hard to continue my second playthrough of TLoU), and even on first playthroughs you sometimes just want some freedom.

While this does bother me in most games, it oddly enough didn't in TLoU. Probably because these walking sections usually follow after very intense action moments, when I don't mind taking a bit of a breather. But also because you can still hurry along, not as fast as when you're in an action segment, but you're not forced into one speed, you can still move quicker if you hold down the sprint button. Plus, it makes scrounging around easier, too.

In Resident Evil 6 you get segments where you're not allowed to do anything but walk forward. You have your gun out and everything, yet the game doesn't let you shoot or even aim you weapon.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

While this does bother me in most games, it oddly enough didn't in TLoU. Probably because these walking sections usually follow after very intense action moments, when I don't mind taking a bit of a breather. But also because you can still hurry along, not as fast as when you're in an action segment, but you're not forced into one speed, you can still move quicker if you hold down the sprint button. Plus, it makes scrounging around easier, too.

In Resident Evil 6 you get segments where you're not allowed to do anything but walk forward. You have your gun out and everything, yet the game doesn't let you shoot or even aim you weapon.

Yeah, whilst TLoU isn't the worst example I was focusing more on the first few chapters of the game which have a LOT of these sections. I just don't like forced pace changes in games, I much preferred the sections in TLoU where you had a large-ish area you could search for supplies and find story in (naturally unlike Left Behind where the easter eggs WERE the gameplay) than the sections where I had to just walk slowly around listening to characters speak.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, whilst TLoU isn't the worst example I was focusing more on the first few chapters of the game which have a LOT of these sections. I just don't like forced pace changes in games, I much preferred the sections in TLoU where you had a large-ish area you could search for supplies and find story in (naturally unlike Left Behind where the easter eggs WERE the gameplay) than the sections where I had to just walk slowly around listening to characters speak.

Oh God please, don't mention Left Behind... That-... That thing needs to die.

 

[Zontar]

People who think good RP is having things be completely realistic and serious instead of playing a role and having fun with it. RPers are basically the worst thing about RP online these days. Just look at Gmod. 1942rp was much more fun when it was lax with the rules like allowing fight clubs and having different situations be permitted which lead to things like Hitler walking into a resistance base, having them dance around and then having him call off WW2 as a result. Then things got serious and now it's a lot less fun.

 

[happyninja42]

People who think good RP is having things be completely realistic and serious instead of playing a role and having fun with it. RPers are basically the worst thing about RP online these days. Just look at Gmod. 1942rp was much more fun when it was lax with the rules like allowing fight clubs and having different situations be permitted which lead to things like Hitler walking into a resistance base, having them dance around and then having him call off WW2 as a result. Then things got serious and now it's a lot less fun.

I've only ever played White Wolf game lines in an online format, so I can't speak to Gmod. But sites like fabula rasa, wanton wicked, and a few others that I can't recall, usually did ok in most cases. The main problem wasn't "realistic" desires from the players, but the mass of cyberbunnies you had to wade through to actually get to something GAME related. I can't tell you how often I heard players talking in the lobby about making some kind of character for Werewolf, Mage, Vampire, etc, and saying they didn't know the rules, so they would just make one of the half-templates, and just "learn the rules as they went along". This...this pisses me off to no end. If you can't be bothered to fucking learn the rules to a game, then clearly you aren't there to actually PLAY THE GAME. And of course not, they were their mainly to try and find someone to hook up with through their character, and cyber with. Made for some really annoying roleplay, when I'm the only fucker in the scene that seems to have any clue about what's actually going on, or how the various factions operate, and I'm surrounded by what is effectively a bunch of strippers that hooked up on tinder, and are just there to sex it up with each other.

 

[Zontar]

People who think good RP is having things be completely realistic and serious instead of playing a role and having fun with it. RPers are basically the worst thing about RP online these days. Just look at Gmod. 1942rp was much more fun when it was lax with the rules like allowing fight clubs and having different situations be permitted which lead to things like Hitler walking into a resistance base, having them dance around and then having him call off WW2 as a result. Then things got serious and now it's a lot less fun.

I've only ever played White Wolf game lines in an online format, so I can't speak to Gmod. But sites like fabula rasa, wanton wicked, and a few others that I can't recall, usually did ok in most cases. The main problem wasn't "realistic" desires from the players, but the mass of cyberbunnies you had to wade through to actually get to something GAME related. I can't tell you how often I heard players talking in the lobby about making some kind of character for Werewolf, Mage, Vampire, etc, and saying they didn't know the rules, so they would just make one of the half-templates, and just "learn the rules as they went along". This...this pisses me off to no end. If you can't be bothered to fucking learn the rules to a game, then clearly you aren't there to actually PLAY THE GAME. And of course not, they were their mainly to try and find someone to hook up with through their character, and cyber with. Made for some really annoying roleplay, when I'm the only fucker in the scene that seems to have any clue about what's actually going on, or how the various factions operate, and I'm surrounded by what is effectively a bunch of strippers that hooked up on tinder, and are just there to sex it up with each other.

Can't say I understand your problem since I've never played ant White Wolf games, but in Gmod, particularly DarkRP or 1942RP people take things way too seriously, and that often times includes the admins. Take the fight club for example, an underground fighting group where people either blow off steam or fight for money (RDM is banned virtually everywhere after all) and instead of making it illegal, and thus if you're caught by authorities you're arrested, instead it's outright banned from the server.

People defend this and other things by claiming it isn't role-play, but the problem is that role-playing is literally just playing a role, and a lot of people in the RP community, both that of Gmod and of others, don't seem to realize that that absolutely does not meant that things need to be serious or realistic. Hell, when playing DnD you can't force my friends and I to do it seriously, the base game is often boring and generic when played straight, and RP in video games is no different (hell, 1942RP NEEDS absurdity for it to even work at a fundamental level).

 

[Black Reaper]

When games have either undodgeable, or unintuitive ways to dodge attacks
Example 1:In Darksiders 2, Death's only defensive option is to dodge away, and this doesn't have any invincibility, so there are some attacks with wide reaching hitboxes that can hit you even if you spot them in time and dodge away

Example 2:In DMC4, many enemy projectiles can track your position, so if you jump away in hopes of avoiding them, the enemy re-aims them towards your new position, this is especially egregious with frosts, who can fire like 5 projectiles, to this day, i have no fucking idea how to avoid it

Also, your jump has invincibility frames, so you're supposed to use it as a dodge, but often(mostly against Berial), i jump away and i still get his by his attacks for some reason, maybe they've got lots of active frames?, i have no idea, but i don't like it
There are lots of little things i dislike about DMC4, that make me really dislike it overall, like how you start with a limited moveset, and you have to wait some time before you can do interesting stuff, how you have to do some crappy platforming and puzzle sections when you want to kick ass, etc.

Another pet peeve i have is badly designed Beat Em Up bosses, i have no idea why, but a lot of devs make really bad bosses for otherwise good games, mainly by giving them abilities that the player can't counter, for example, giving them super armor without giving players the defensive options to counter it, giving them fast, unreactable moves, giving them ways to escape out of combos without giving the players options to counter this, etc.

 

[Unia]

When in-game mechanics and canon stop working in cutscenes
Often a character is reduced to a pathetic shadow of their usual selves for the sake of driving the story - ingame you can usually take half a clip of assault rifle fire to the torso and regain health by resting momentarily behind a wall, but suddenly a single 9mm round is deadly. And that health kit/revive potion that usually lets you reroll death? Guess what, they suddenly stopped existing.

I have a good explanation for this. Games battle system doesn't reflect what "really" happens. And this is a good thing. IF they did then you would face 2 problems. Either you would need to accept that everything during battles would also work outside of them. This would mean that healing people in split second or even reviving them is a possibility. This would make any threat of death pretty much meaningless.
Or you would need to restrict the games battle system so much that it wouldn't break the "realism" of the world. That would make for pretty boring battle systems.

Both cases are not good and should be avoided in my opinion.

That reminds me of Betrayal of Krondor. Getting damaged in battle would make allies and enemies alike weaker and less likely to hit. That basically just meant whoever landed the first blow would most likely land the last blow. I recall it was the primary reason I quickly gave up on that game.

 

[Callate]

Bad maps. In some ways, it's easier to navigate by memory and feel alone than to deal with a 2D map that suggests the quickest way between two waypoints is the way that's made inaccessible because of chasms, cliffs, or worse, invisible walls. This is one of the few areas where the Borderlands games really irritated me.

 

[Batou667]

So what do you want to compromise for the sake of realism, story or gameplay?

In an ideal world? Neither, of course.

But there's a third element, and that's the relationship between them. The suspension of disbelief. The way a good game will skillfully guide a player toward one or two predetermined outcomes while leaving the player feeling in control. Making cutscenes and background story feel relevant to the gameplay (do we want to save the hostage because we feel an emotional investment, or simply because letting the hostage die is an instant lose condition? Are we actually motivated to save the world, or do we just want to see the end cinematic and get our 1000 gamerscore?)

I think good games tie the two together in a way that isn't necessarily a compromise.

 

[Twintix]

Not being able to 100% the game immediately.

I got a bit ticked off that I couldn't 100% beat Super Mario Galaxy until I already beat Bowser because the game makers decided that "Nope! To fully complete the game, you have to beat the final boss before we'll show you the last missions!".
I've got some completionist tendencies, so this one kinda irks me. Like, if it's not a bonus world, what is even the point of setting it up like that?

 

[MHR]

I'm weird I guess. The RNG elements and invisible walls don't bother me at all. I'm one of those hopeless fools that thinks the unpredictability of RNG gives the game some variety. And what do you expect with invisible walls? The game map has to end somewhere, and if they didn't add an invisible wall, then they'd just have to add some patronizing impassable setpiece or a fake door that's just painted on a wall.

Bullshit Multiplayer Achievements
What kind of hubris have you that you think your game with tacked-on multiplayer is going to stay populated for more than just a little while? Fine, I can ignore it and just chalk up the budgetary misappropriation to general pandering ineptitude, but then you go and tie it to like 20 fucking achievements. Bullshit.

Too much ammo
I'm not some console pheasant that can't aim because I'm using a shitty controller to feel more "comfortable." Stop babying me with 10 times more ammunition than I need to kill things. I feel like the item management systems in the game doesn't even matter, because you have to be an amputee at the wrists to have any problems.

Get all the best stuff and upgrades! And then the game ends.
Self-explanatory. What a payoff, huh?

Romance subplots
At best, it's a much-hyped fanservice feature that's sole purpose is just a straightforward lead-up to a "racy" PG-13 roll around and fadeout. I have internet porn now, Plz stop. There are dating sims for those types of people.

Frame drops, crashes, bugs
It's obvious, but I've been playing a lot of FalloutNV/Skyrim/Fallout 3 to get ready for Fallout 4. Even with the unofficial bugfixes and not running the game on ultra or trying to break anything, the games still fucking crashes and bugs in many ways.

I don't want your proprietary marketplace bullshit!
Not a small complaint. Uplay, GFWL, Origin, or signing in to access anything can fuck right off. Having to fire up or look at any of those things feels like a violation.