Poll: Game features you don't care for

[Gearran]

Quick-time Events.

I really don't care if you want to put in a really super cool action sequence here, or make sure the player stays on their toes, or isn't dozing on their couch or doing crotchet in between moments of gameplay. If I can't do it with the controls you've given me as a part of the game's mechanics, I don't want it around. The game should be able to test my reflexes and attention span without having me watch every microsecond of play (and cutscenes, in some more egregious examples) for that game prompt to prevent myself from either dying or missing something important. Cutscenes should be there to be enjoyed, a small break from the action (and I mean SMALL; I'm looking at you MGS 4!). The game's mechanics should have the ability to do awesome stuff without suddenly entering into split-second data entry mode. If anything, it makes me feel like the game doesn't think you're cool enough to do something badass on your own, so it leads you by the nose through a little button-press game aside from what you were doing, then takes over the gameplay for you in order to do what you're just too shit to do for yourself.

I hate that.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's not advertised but the one feature I hate above all others is the fricken tutorial pop ups that keep interrupting my game. Like fighting the first batman boss in AA and before I even get a chance to figure out what to do the game blurts it in my face. Let me figure it out for frick's sake.

Well you can usually toggle those off. Incidentally I played Arkham City a few days ago and I was surprised every time a different enemy type (i.e. armed with blades or using shields) showed up the game would insta-remind me how to particularly deal with those. Which was very annoying, but not as annoying as being reminded how to COUNTER (if you take a couple of hits the game assumes you've forgotten how to counter and starts shoving that in). That was particularly irritating in some fights, considering the counter button is literally the first button you push in the game.

 

[Evil Smurf]

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).

Games in Australia are often $90. (Granted if you read reviews, use Digital Distribution and shop around for sales you can get them for less.)
If you spend $90+ on a game, you expect it to be amazing, you expect something fantastic and if all you get is a game that you finish in four hours, that leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, you get annoyed.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I enjoy playing Dead Space 3 and then I come up to one of those doors with 'CO-OP' emblazoned on it and I start furiously punching it in game. So Multiplayer/Co-op can jump off a rusty bridge with no bungee cable and I'd be happy.

So that's why, whilst I have no intentions on getting Titan Fall, I can at least respect their decision to focus on the core of their experience.

 

[Mid Boss]

Multiplayer.

I don't like people.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Persistent worlds.

No doubt they're a great idea for school kids and the unemployed, but for those of us with jobs and families who can only devote between two and six hours a week to gaming it is an anathema. I love gaming, it's been a hobby of mine since the late 80's, but I have commitments. I can't spend the time gaming that I used to, and there are friends of mine who spend in a day the amount of time I can spend gaming in a week. This isn't down to a lack of interest, this is simply down to having a fuller life, and I'm kinda opposed to games that punish me for doing things other than gaming.

I hear you. A Tamagochi died on me when I was a kid and I have been traumatized by it ever since.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Multiplayer, more, specifically, public online multiplayer matches, made worse when there are no dedicated servers that I can hop onto. To me, multiplayer is about spending time with friends, so throwing me in with a bunch of random people takes away 50% of the fun of multiplayer. I enjoy private matches, or playing with friends in the same room (split screen, turn-based games, fighting games, etc.). I'm willing to tolerate dedicated servers, as you can generally get to know the regulars on those servers over time. However, once I run out of friends to play with, I completely lose interest in the mode. I'm more of a singleplayer guy myself anyways.

 

[Nurb]

QTE

KYOOO-TEEEE-EEEEE.... They're replacing combat in the new Theif with QTE

I'm off to cry now.

 

[shrekfan246]

Games where they support the stealthy approach.
Stealth is the act of avoiding fun. Why would anyone want that?

Stealth is a different type of fun for some people. The excitement of taking out guards without being spotted/getting through heavily-guarded rooms without even getting near any enemies in the first place can provide another kind of rush compared to just busting in and blasting them all in the face.

OT: I really don't care about how many hours a game supposedly goes on for. I jump between a bunch of different games at a time anyway, having a story that meanders over 80 hours is more often than not going to leave me not feeling any compelling need to keep going back to your game and do all of your frequently tedious, nonsensical, boring, or outright obnoxious grinding and side-quests. If the length is provided simply because there's that much flavor text and character dialogue and areas to explore, then okay. But if its padded out with endless side stuff just so they can claim the game will provide over 100+ hours of entertainment, then I'm just as likely to look on to another title because the only way those will really hook me is if the core gameplay mechanics are really fun in the first place.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I'm not a big multiplayer guy, but that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. I don't mind co-op (offline, specifically and ffs don't make it mandatory to the story), and the Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed multiplayer wasn't awful but I tired of it quickly.

But my actual vote goes to any section where they take away control, or where I can't mash a button and make the prompt disappear. Anything that breaks the flow in a game is an accrued moment of fun I'm not having, and those more than anything tend to affect my view of a game.

 

[likalaruku]

Yay: Length & replayability.

Boo: Co-op & multiplayer.

 

[Snotnarok]

Multiplayer can be good but most games don't benefit from it. Uncharted mp? ...Can't imagine that being good or people buying it FOR that.
Thing that is just getting old is regenerating health, the biggest form of handholding and it would be fine if it wasn't nearly EVERY game using it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Multiplayer can be good but most games don't benefit from it. Uncharted mp? ...Can't imagine that being good or people buying it FOR that.
Thing that is just getting old is regenerating health, the biggest form of handholding and it would be fine if it wasn't nearly EVERY game using it.

Yeah, everybody has a healing factor these days. And then we're supposed to be wowed that Deadpool and Wolverine's health regenerate.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

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.

Very much this. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good, purely multi-player game. They have a place in gaming. But. If a game has a single-player component at all, I believe that it needs to be able to stand on that single-player on its own, regardless of multi-player. Though, I figure there will be exceptions, albeit few and far-between.

What bugs me is the fact that the game industry seems to think that single-player is passe, outdated, obsolete, whatever, and is trying to cut it out as much as possible in favor of forced multi-player.

Seriously, the value of a good, decently long single-player game is far higher than a half-assed game with barely playable multi-player shoved into a rough campaign.

 

[LAGG]

Voice Acting. Couldn't care less, and lately many games are overrated just for being voice-acted.
Voice acting is the new "what makes games good" of the masses, as if it wasn't bad enough with "realistic graphics".

Achievements really don't see the point.

Achievements are only an annoyance, but those go with the features I hate, together with QTEs.

 

[DeepReaver]

Quick time events? That's a feature right? Can we just do away with them totally, i mean hell we had a game made totally out of them that should have been a good indicator to stop right?

But really Multiplayer, it is a dumb feature that can break certain aspects of games due to the fact that the mechanics need to support both the single and multiplayer. I mean look at spec-ops the line. If that game had had it's mechanics more geared towards the single player and not the both the single and multiplayer it probably would have had a much more solid impact on the industry besides just it's stellar story. But in truth multiplayer creep is a cancer, certain games just do not need it and it is never played. I mean look at assassins creed, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Metroid Prime 2. Those are all examples of games that were able to stand on their own without the need for multiplayer and that cancer took away from the single player of the game. It is sad thinking of how much better certain games could have been in they had not had this cancer forced upon them.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Co-OP and Multiplayer for me.

I really hate it when it's very tacked on. If I want multiplayer or co-op I will purchase the Call of Duty`s or Left 4 Dead that are made for those specific modes.

 

[Strazdas]

why not multiple choice poll?

What i chose was co-op, what i would choose would be:

Co-op

Multiplayer

Extra Content

New Game Plus

Co-op: I never ever use this, i hate the AI coop partners and i think it is insult to me to force co-op on me. When i want to play a game in my own way i dont need some tea-bagging douche ruining all my plans randomly because he fails at basic communication. Or one that gets lost and i need to wait on him for half hour. I want to do things alone, my own way, on my own time.

Multiplayer: Kinda yes and no. When i play a singleplayer game, i want only singleplayer and will totaly ignore multiplayer. it is a wasted ahrd drive space as far as im concerned. When i play multiplayer, i play games that are designed for multiplayer, as in, they have no singleplayer to begiin with, they were made for multiplayer. i think the two types should be seperate and i treat them this way.

Extra content: not exactly sure what you mean about this. but i dont care about "unlocable pictures of dev team" adn stuff like that was popular in 2000s games. i would enjoy a developers commentary (sort of like directors commentary for movies) though. but i would rather watch that in youtube-like player than inside a game.

New game plus: I literally never used this feature. i can udenrstand why for some people this is a fun experience, but personally i never use it.

As for other features:
i dislike quick time events. if im watcihng a inematic im watching a cinematic (i dont hate cinematics like most) and if im playing im playing, i dont want to need to dash to the keyboard and tap some random button for cinematic not to go dark and tell me to watch it again.
time events. i like to play games on my own time, and i am in utter rage when a game tells me "do this in 15 minutes" and a clock starts ticking. no. ill do it when i want, you ignorant game designer. (this maybe also explains why soem civilization matches i play for over 40 hours )
Cheats. i never use them on first play. and when i do use them to have fun without saving afterwards, they never seem to come close to what i want. in fact, i end up using trianers rather thna cheats in those occasions as they are better. why cant a cheat work liek a trainer?

Quick time events? That's a feature right? Can we just do away with them totally, i mean hell we had a game made totally out of them that should have been a good indicator to stop right?

Farenheit (that game made almost netirely out of QTE) was quite good game. this i am afraid lead to their popularity.

Yeah, everybody has a healing factor these days. And then we're supposed to be wowed that Deadpool and Wolverine's health regenerate.

Its not really a new mechanic. we saw plenty of it in games like the 2002 Red Faction II and the like back then. it was always popular because then developers can ignore having to place medic packs smartly.

 

[Ikasury]

multiplayer... WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO HAVE MULTIPLAYER?! x.x

like The Last of Us for example, why does it have multi? the story is great and i thought it was all about world building and stuff, so why is it like a week before its released i read this thing that's telling me 'oh, btw, it has multiplayer' like i give a damn!!! i get fighting games having multi or FPSs, or whatever, but really deathmatch and team deathmatch can only be made so many different ways, ITS STILL THE SAME DAMN THING!! and typically extremely boring after one or two games -.- do not get, do not want, spend more of that time on making the game better, kthxbi!

i think the only games i even LIKED the multi one was Aliens Colonial Marines because i had a blast playing Xenos (wish there was a campaign for that ._.) and Mass Effect 3, yea, you heard me, I LIKED THE MULTI IN ME3!! XD i'm not a pvp type person, so random teams to do effectively missions of kill buncha things as any of the species in ME with a team, fun to me :3 plus it added to the whole UNIVERSE AT WAR feel... so i liked it...

i'm fine with Co-op, some games only exist for that, like Boarderlands...

extra content? look i could give a damnless about that unless you're giving me some game breaking thing of total awesomeness -.- but usually its dink stuff or it makes something shiny, like multi, spend that time making the GAME better before caring about that bs... honestly its like devs are thinking of DLCs they can squeeze money out of before the game's story is even complete half the time -.-

real-life time bs... ugh... i dunno what its called, but that thing where you have to waste real time or login every so often so stuff doesn't go to hell -.- its like, why do i bother playing this if i leave it alone for awhile and it just dies on me because i don't pay attention to it... i'm not a tomogachi fan!

 

[captainballsack]

Features that are added without thinking about how it changes the core mechanics of the game.

If your game doesn't need to be open world, don't make it open world. Just because open world is a fun and cool feature, doesn't mean that it is needed in your game.

When we start putting "cool" features above proper game design, that's when we stop making a "game" and start making a "toy," because a lot of the time, those features are game breakers because they're not integrated properly. Prototype is a good example; if the combat got too hard, I could rest knowing that I could just jump away at anytime, and towards the end of the game, if I felt challenged, I could always just pull out my cool but gamebreaking blades and absolutely destroy.

Saints Row the Third is even fucking worse. That game is a fun toy, but as an actual game, its broken. If I buy the DLC, I can destroy absolutely anything that comes my way. They broke the game for what? Some gimmicky, comedic feature? I'll admit, the guns and vehicles were cool and fun, but they ruined any sort of challenge. "Just don't use them" isn't good enough either, because there is a thing called "dominant strategy" that exists, and its only natural for us to do what works best. It shouldn't be up to me to dictate the challenge, that's the developers job. Honestly, not integrating these features so that they break the game isn't on me, its on the developers for being lazy or just shit at game design (although, its most likely on the publishers who forced them to put these features).