Poll: Game features you don't care for

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,583
3,119
118
You know those selling-point features that are always advertised on the other side of the box? "Over 100 hours of fun!", "Replay the story from a different perspective!", "Supports X amount of players!", etc, etc, etc. All those tiny little blurbs. Do you really care for them? I mean, obviously it's nice to have as many options as possible, but do you really need them, and do they make that much of a difference when buying a game? EVERY time someone recommends me a good game they'll add "Well, it's a little short" or "Multiplayer sucks/There isn't any". And I couldn't care any less about how long it'll take me to beat the game, or playing with other people! I never mind length and multiplayer options. Co-op's nice, that's always welcome, but that's it. If I really liked a game I will replay it, with or without new skins or new endings or using stuff I unlocked in a first playthrough. I really don't mind, honest.

What features are constantly advertised and the source of negative/positive criticism, yet you don't really care for them?
 

Miss G.

New member
Jun 18, 2013
535
0
0
Multi-player.
Regardless if its good or bad.
Period.

I get enough of human interaction when I'm outside my house - when I come home, other than family, I want as little contact as humanly possible with them. Usually if a game even says multi-player on the box, what interest I might've had immediately dies because more than likely they skimped out on the single-player campaign and that's the only part I care about. If I do like a game because of its story, characters, mechanics, franchise etc I avoid the multi-player functions like the plague. With the exception of fighting games and odd brawler or 2, SP4Life.
 

Maximum Bert

New member
Feb 3, 2013
2,149
0
0
Well I like and hate a lot of features I hate poorly implemented ones and like well implemented ones which can often be the same feature just in different games.

I have never seen Achievements/Trophys implemented well though they always detract from the game imo its just an empty hollow feature that tempts you to buy into its pointlessness and is used to mark equally pointless pieces of gameplay gateways that serve no purpose. They should get rid of them games can stand on their own without them they just weaken the whole experience by reminding you how pathetic your achievements in game are detracting from the experience as a whole.
 

Foolery

No.
Jun 5, 2013
1,714
0
0
You know, I'm not really against any of those. Maybe multiplayer. But New Game Plus? Hell yes. Extra content? Sure why not. Length? Yeah, alright. So long as it's well thought out and doesn't start to drag on. Co-op? Sure, I'd prefer that over multiplayer. In fact Peacewalker's co-op missions were one of my favourite parts of the Metal Gear Solid HD collection. I think it can be fantastic if a game puts in those things, especially if it's not DLC. As for achievements/trophies I just ignore them like I always have. Doesn't bother me. Most are pretty mundane to do.
 

Mullac

New member
Oct 6, 2012
199
0
0
Yep, multiplayer. Especially in single player games that by no means need it. Co-op on the other hand I love, usually because it's integrated well and I just love having a laugh with my friends in it.
 

Vitor Vieira

New member
Apr 13, 2012
12
0
0
Well for me it is definetly the "New Game Plus" mode. If i like a game enough to want to replay it I'll do it anyway and I don't need my abilities to be all upgraded and such. I understand why people may like it, but for me it's just filler.

It's actually quite difficult to find games nowadays that I would play from start to finish more than once, especially if I can't make any different decisions to see new outcomes in the story! Decisions are something I trully enjoy, even if some games just do it for flavour (games I won't play another time).

I believe multiplayer modes to be great, although some games do not need those features,Mass Effect and God of War are two good examples!

The lengh is something I take very seriously! I love to play Skyrim, one of the reasons being the enourmous scope of the world and what you can do within it!

Co-op is nice and even more imoportant than multiplayer in some games!

As for extra content, it is always welcome and may grant the game a few extra hours of fun for completionists!
 

mohit9206

New member
Oct 13, 2012
458
0
0
I don't care for replayability.I only play a game once no matter how good the game is as there are too many games in this world for me to spend all my time on just one game.Also for me there is no excitement,surprise or fun when playing the same game again.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
New game + . No i don't want to start over with all my gear , i want to start over at level 1 and have everything be harder *stares at Darksouls*.
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
I don't like these games where I miss out on a large part of the content just because I'm playing alone.
So. Co-op. Really don't care much for it.
I enjoy it when I get a chance to play it, but it's unfortunate when it detracts from the singleplayer experience in my singleplayer game.
 

TrevHead

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,458
0
0
Depending on the game and genre Co-op and Multiplayer, I like my single player games not everything has to be bloody MP.

Game length is another, I would happily fork over £40 for a game that was 30 mins long if the quality and replayabilty is there. Infact I already do that since CAVE shmups can be £50 to import and are 30 mins in length.

PPl who won't buy a game unless they get $1 per hour of content are ruining games for me, due to all the padding, sidequest filler and MMO xp leveling mechanics that many modern games have since ppl must get value for their $ (sigh).
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Games where they support the stealthy approach.
Stealth is the act of avoiding fun. Why would anyone want that?
Multiplayer games that don't include local play are a big pet peeve of mine.
 

Mocmocman

New member
Dec 4, 2012
277
0
0
When it's advertized on the box, that's at the point I don't really care about it. I like long games, but when the box is telling me how long it is, then I worry that they are just padding it out. Most of the time when they advertize replayability it is just them saying that there is content you can't get in one playthrough. But the one I voted for is Multiplayer. I until a year ago, when I got my first PC game, I had never had any device set up to even be able to play with other people. I got along just fine, and I don't see that changing.
 

Hero of Lime

Staaay Fresh!
Jun 3, 2013
3,114
0
41
Multiplayer is fun and all, but considering it's one of the few features of gaming that require other people to have fun will always make it feel inferior to me. It may be because I grew up thinking this way, but multiplayer always seemed like something on the side, tack on, not the main purpose of a game.
 

Whispering Cynic

New member
Nov 11, 2009
356
0
0
Multiplayer, if it's not the main focus of the game (like in TF2) it tends to be shoddy and not exactly well constructed. Its development also tends to drain resources and thus decrease the quality of single player content. Never cared much for co-op either, I prefer to play single player games alone. I dislike having to accomodate my playstyle to other people...

Oh and achievements. Unless they provide me with real gameplay related bonuses (see the first Mass Effect for a great example) they are simply irrelevant. So why should I bother with "achieving" them?
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Multiplayer and, co-op because there is only one of me playing the game offline. I wouldn't mind bot matches though in games like Crysis 2, or absolutely any given Halo. I'm not against multiplayer or, co-op but I don't generally care for it. If it's forced into the game or, meant to be a part of the core experience like it seemed to have been for Crackdown 2 and, Dead Space 3 than it can fuck off.