Poll: Game features you don't care for

[lunavixen]

Multiplayer or co op, especially when it is shoehorned in and detracts from the Single player campaign (yes, i'm looking at you Dead Space 3), also, QTEs that aren't an integral part of the game (you know, the random ones that pop up out of nowhere). That being said, I do enjoy games that were designed from the outset to be multiplayer, like TF2, the Unreal games (not a CoD person) etc., and I did enjoy Heavy Rain

 

[Marik Bentusi]

Length
isn't necessarily important when the final product has a definite arc and planning behind it that suits its length. Like how Portal was kinda short, but it didn't feel like cut short out of necessity.

Co-op
I never care for, simply too much coordination inside and outside the game for very little gain IMO.

Multiplayer
I never really gave a crap about, tho once in a blue moon I'll pick up a title in that line - but I could really do without.

Replayability
is nice to have, but not a necessity by any means. I do like games like Bioshock where replaying a game can add to your overall experience and immersion tho.

New Game +
isn't a feature I specifically look for, but it's nice to have if you stumble across a neat superpower like 3 levels before the end boss and you don't want to replay those chapters to death just for that neat superpower.

Extra Content
Not sure what you mean by that, but if it's DLC I generally don't give a toss. Sometimes I'll pick up stuff when it's like 75%+ off on Steam, like the DXHR DLC or a few Just Cause 2 goodies, but generally nah. I'm kinda intrigued in Bioshock Infinite story DLC, but I'd personally prefer it if such things were included in a proper sequel or at least expansion pack.

Other
Graphics. I really do not give a toss about raw graphical fidelity. Aesthetics yes, both because it looks good and because they can actively contribute to level design and such, but I'm not impressed by a rock texture getting blurry a couple steps later this year than last year. Recently my old 9600GT broke and now I can have everything ultra & fluid on my GTX660, and I can still say I don't give a toss about anything but the framerate really.
Plus I much more admire "clever" engines that find tricks to impress with spectacle while being easy on the hardware rather than raw powerhouses that simply juggle moar polies and texture resolution sizes.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

i voted multiplayer, but really would have said motion controls, if the option were available

 

[Roxor]

Multiplayer.

I don't like people.

I subscribe to the same school of thought as you do.

If you want to include multiplayer in your game, it shouldn't require making additional maps. Look at Doom or Duke Nukem 3D. Those games have levels which work just fine for either single-player, co-op, or deathmatch. Heck the Plutonium Pak extra episode for Duke 3D even adds what could be considered a variant of capture the flag in e4l10 using only the level design and existing Dukematch programming.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Extra Content
Not sure what you mean by that, but if it's DLC I generally don't give a toss. Sometimes I'll pick up stuff when it's like 75%+ off on Steam, like the DXHR DLC or a few Just Cause 2 goodies, but generally nah. I'm kinda intrigued in Bioshock Infinite story DLC, but I'd personally prefer it if such things were included in a proper sequel or at least expansion pack.

I guess I meant unlockable challenges, modes, sub-scenarios, side-stories, mini-games, DLC, all that crap. Nice to have for an added boost but not something that weighs in that much in my opinion.

 

[Angelblaze]

I.
Hate.
Multiplayer.


Sure, when your winning usually everything is okay, but if you are losing its someone's fault - NO, the team is not just naturally getting out played someone just SUCKS DICK AND NEEDS TO DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE.

Despite what alot of people claim you won't find the worst of these children in Xbox 360 live. That's p2p and henceforth; very few dumbasses. The majority are on PC mmo gaming.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

By game features I'm going to go specific and mention an element of gameplay that's big in modern games, shooters in particular.

Two Guns.

I damn near threw my toys out the pram when I started playing Bioshock Infinite and it became apparent I was only allowed two fucking guns, never even mind the lack of multiple ammo types.

The two most core elements of the gameplay behind the entire franchise, offered up to the gods of Me Too.

Honestly I had more fun playing through Doom again then I did with that game. The story was brilliant(well, pretty good), the gameplay was very mediocre.

Two Fucking Guns...

This completely went over my head. "Two guns" is a thing now?

 

[GonzoGamer]

Any of those feature can be great if the game is great. However I find that multiplayer is too often shoehorned into a title that doesn't need it. Usually (like in the case of most Sony games, hi God of War) its so they can have an online pass or (in the case of 360 games) pay extra to play online.
Oftentimes I think the resources spent on multiplayer would've been better used on a more robust single player portion of the game.

 

[Gatx]

Cover systems, especially in first person games. Being able to move behind things and crouch if necessary shouuld be enough of a cover system, why add in this extra, finicky system that may cause me to stick to a wall I don't want to.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Out of the listed poll options, probably New Game+ or multiplayer (if it's tacked on to a game that should be primarily single player).

I just never really feel the urge to immediately replay a game that I've just finished even if they make it slightly harder. I have way too many games on my list to play so I usually quickly lose interest and move on after beating a game once. The most important part of most games to me is the story, so replaying the game often has diminishing returns since I know exactly how it'll play out.

If I want to play a multiplayer game, I'll usually just play a game that was made exclusively for multiplayer, like Dota 2 or TF2, so adding multiplayer modes usually doesn't impress me. The one notable exception was for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, whose multiplayer was a surprisingly refreshing and intriguing re-imagining of the game mechanics. But I quickly got tired of it now that it's been copy-pasted into Revelations and ACIII

 

[Ascarus]

multiplayer in mostly single player games and especially achievements,

definitely these two. i don't bother with multi-player for the most part and achievements are lazy ways of providing "content".

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

By game features I'm going to go specific and mention an element of gameplay that's big in modern games, shooters in particular.

Two Guns.

I damn near threw my toys out the pram when I started playing Bioshock Infinite and it became apparent I was only allowed two fucking guns, never even mind the lack of multiple ammo types.

The two most core elements of the gameplay behind the entire franchise, offered up to the gods of Me Too.

Honestly I had more fun playing through Doom again then I did with that game. The story was brilliant(well, pretty good), the gameplay was very mediocre.

Two Fucking Guns...

This completely went over my head. "Two guns" is a thing now?

Only being allowed to carry two guns.

Assuming you don't play a lot of tooled up action games? It seems that in just about anything that has guns at it's core and isn't deliberately pulling some 'old school' schtick(see Painkiller), that you're limited to two guns. Gears lets you have 3 if memory serves, TR let you have 4, but for the most part, the days of sacrificing realism in the name of gameplay and letting players toddle about the place with an arsenal are long gone, and it seems these days that it's all about the primary weapon and the side arm, cod style.

Really wound me up in Bioshock though cause the series has a history of letting you roll with a huge collection of guns each with fire modes, but that game stripped that shit right out.

Yeah I get what you're saying now.
My first thoughts went something along these lines...

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Multiplayer. While it can be good fun, it only is up until lag or you find one of those guys. (insert disliked player type.)

I'd prefer a good solid single player experience, with length and new game plus. And maybe some co-op on the side 'cause co-op is awesome, if it doesn't detract from the game or series. (I'd say the Co-op missions in Dead Space 3 were the best parts, though, I don't know if story and campaign suffered because of it's inclusion.)

But don't do a Fear 3. Where the game is build around co-op but doesn't change a thing for single-player.

 

[lawraWeltreich]

Multiplayer and Co-op. I have enough human interaction at work and with my family, videogames are the only alone time I get

 

[theaudioprophet]

The later Assassins creed games with their throwaway economy element, utterly tedious and useless

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

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.

don't know if someone has quoted you on this already but achievements are now sort of worth something, as long as you're joined up to xbox live rewards you can get 1 or 2% on all purchases depending on your gamerscore

On topic i really hate QTE not sure if this is what you mean but meh!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

don't know if someone has quoted you on this already but achievements are now sort of worth something, as long as you're joined up to xbox live rewards you can get 1 or 2% on all purchases depending on your gamerscore

On topic i really hate QTE not sure if this is what you mean but meh!

The 1-2% on all purchases actually sounds pretty good. But yeah, I meant mostly stuff that gets heavily advertised like it's supposed to be one of the main selling-points in a videogame, but you don't really care for. The poll options (try to) reflect the typical blurbs games get sold on.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Grind... It's usually cleverly disguised as "Over 80 hours of gameplay!" or "200+ quests!"
but when it boils down to "Kill X amount of monster Y" and "Deliver package B to person C" and "Collect N of item M in area D" it just ticks me off... If you can come up with 200 original quests that aren't all the same that would be amazing. But stop saying you have 200+ when you have 3 repeated 200+ times...

Well if you want to boil stuff to their bare essentials, there're 4 of 5 kinds of missions once you get past 'Kill X' or 'Go X'.

Escort Mission
Timed Mission
Collection Sidequest
Luck-Based Mission

 

[Caiphus]

Jumping into the thread to add to the anti-multiplayer echo chamber.

Also, is it ironic that "Length" currently has the shortest bar in the poll?

I think the answer is yes.

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

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.

don't know if someone has quoted you on this already but achievements are now sort of worth something, as long as you're joined up to xbox live rewards you can get 1 or 2% on all purchases depending on your gamerscore

On topic i really hate QTE not sure if this is what you mean but meh!

The 1-2% on all purchases actually sounds pretty good. But yeah, I meant mostly stuff that gets heavily advertised like it's supposed to be one of the main selling-points in a videogame, but you don't really care for. The poll options (try to) reflect the typical blurbs games get sold on.

yeah it's pretty cool means dawnguard for skyrim only cost me around 900 instead of 1200