Mechanics: Good Vs Bad Implementation

[immortalfrieza]

So recently I've been thinking about game mechanics. It's very rare that any game mechanic hasn't been done before, or isn't simply a modification of a previous one. i.e. Shadow of Mordor's combat is a version of the combat of the Batman Arkham games.

What makes the difference is how the mechanic is implemented. A mechanic can be old and even overused and still be great if it's used in an effective way. So, I ask the forums. What would you consider a good implementation of a mechanic, and a bad implementation of that mechanic and give examples of each if they exist?

For me, games with a choice mechanic. A good implementation of this is games like Undertale and Steambot Chronicles. Games with characters that are so quirky and memorable that even though the game gives players a chance to utterly screw them over, I found I couldn't bear to actually do it. The characters are not annoying nor boring, they appear, do some fun and funny stuff, and then disappear from the game before they overstay their welcome.

A bad implementation of a choice mechanic... where to do I start? Games with choices and characters generic or otherwise that are so forgettable I don't even care to go on a psychotic rampage killing them all, like the entire Fable series. Or games which have "choices" that never actually effect anything of significance, like... just about every Telltale game out there.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I would say Shadow of Mordor combat is a perfect example of bad implementation. Arkham combat works in Batman because Batman isn't just a straight combat game and it's only like 1/3 of the game so it doesn't get old nearly as fast because you're not constantly fighting and the fights are spaced out. Whereas Shadow of Mordor is just a straight up combat game and you're constantly fighting, and the lack of depth in Arkham combat really shows. Plus, Shadow of Mordor ripped off Arkham combat basically wholesale, there's very little if any differences, all the special moves are straight from Arkham even. The new Spiderman games are good implementation of Arkham combat because they actually evolved and changed the combat enough, they added a whole aerial aspect to the combat, and the Spiderman games are also just not solely a combat game.

A lot of your standard open world games have tons of bad implementation because everyone just expects ABC and XYZ things to be in all these games so the mechanics are just in there (like crafting) because it's expected vs whether it actually works for the game. Even a developer like From Software does this, basically every game they make now has Souls design even though it makes no sense like in Sekiro.

 

[BrawlMan]

"RPG Elements" in games. Most of them are implemented horribly and lazily, and are only done, because X and Y game made it popular. The AAA side suffers so much from this. The RPG mechanics are not needed, can be removed, and the game would work better with out them. They're only left in there for busy work, padding, or you'll get sold DLC to "skip the grind". AA and indie games are not immune from this either. A lot of retro-2D brawlers with RPG elements are either copying Guardian Heroes or River City Ransom, and are doing a piss poor job.

The combat gets grindy and it's all about stats, to the point where you could remove it, and nothing would be lost. It worked for Guardian Heroes, because every time you completed a campaign (with multiple story paths), the stats would reset on a new game. I defend this, as keeping the stats permanent would have made your character an unstoppable game breaker, and make the game less fun and too easy. It was all done for the sake of balance. Treasure could have made it a separate mode, but then would have rescale and rebalance everything, I can't blame them for taking the more convenient option. It allows for multiple experimentation and fast paced action without the bad grind. Not even Code of Princess comes close in this regard (though better than all of its contemporaries in this regard and the combat), the spiritual successor to GH. Combat in the game is great, but not as fast paced due to being 2.5D. Playing on Switch or PC improves the performance of the game, and run at a solid 60fps. I still recommend the game.

River City Ransom has an open-sandbox, where you can properly level up without grinding too much. There are shops and places you can go to upgrade your moves and stats. The problem with a lot of these modern indie games that try copy this formula are strictly linear with no opened level design, and try to get around by beefing enemies health to high heaven, or rely too much on stat boosting. Such as Scott Pilgrim being the stand out example. Ever since brawlers been slowly breeding new life in the mid-to-late 2010s, I find less and less reason to go back to Scott Pilgrim. Especially since River City Girls came out, and does the job much better with RPG mechanics. Better yet, just play the brawlers that are strictly arcade style, but have a large move list per character, and tight level design. Give me SOR/Final Fight inspired brawlers almost any day of the week over most "GH/RCR inspired" games.

Locking on in melee action games. It seems most can't get this right as Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, or even No More Heroes. DMC's is not always perfect either. Ninja Gaiden: An auto-lock on that works 85% of the time. They never once implemented a manual lock-on mechanic in any of the games in the modern trilogy. Most of Grasshopper's other action games don't have a good lock-on, or has a lock-on that works as a glorified one hit kill against common enemies. I am referring to Lollipop Chainsaw and Killer Is Dead respectively. KID has an auto lock-on, but surprisingly works better than NG's auto targeting. DmC (2013) got rid of it for no reason in the vanilla release.