Poll: Game features you don't care for

[Greg White]

In general, Multiplayer. Dedicated multiplayer games, like WoT, I can understand, but most games can get by just fine without them.

Any full-priced game needs to be able to stand on its own with just single player, no exceptions.

 

[Maximum Bert]

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!

Didnt know that but still it adds nothing to the game and to be honest 15p plus a maximum of 2% off purchases is kinda insulting by showing how little they are worth in real world money it just devalues them further imo they should just get rid of them along with trophies.

 

[Zenn3k]

I was gonna say Regenerating Health, but Multiplayer is a better answer.

Almost every time, multiplayer ends up being an exercise in frustration and is rarely fun, often its terrible and leads to me wanting to punt my console across the room.

 

[omega 616]

Co-op, never really played co-op and I don't see the appeal, then again I'm not into the whole "having friends thing".

If I want to play with somebody I want to compete against them.

I especially hate the co-op achievements/trophies 'cos I can't get them for reasons outside of the game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Yeah I get what you're saying now.

Oh! Fair enough lol, my bad.

Great, now I'm really aware that Arkham Origins is out in a few months and I should probably wrap up my intended 100% of City to get in the mood...

You know I did 100% on EVERY sidequest in City EXCEPT those fucking augmented reality training missions. Just can't fly through those fucking hoops. Part of me gave up because, well, it's Arkham City, not that wretched Superman 64 game. At some point you just go: fuck it. I didn't take this shit from Superman, I don't have to take it from Batman.

 

[aguspal]

...


Um...


I dont hate any of those?


I dont see why would anyone actually hate any of the options... The more options, the better right?


Unless you have a problem with Multiplayer because it is begin forced into a lot of games for no reason... in witch case its a problem of the devs who choosed to do that not the multiplayer itself.



But If I had to say one feature I really couldt give a shit about, well how about all of those "character editors" out there? Skyrim and Fallout had one. So did that one fable clone whose name I cant remember atm. I couldt care less about how my character looks, I am not going to see them 99% of the game anyways, just let me play the game!


I understand some people enjoy it thougt so no reason to delete it or something...


EDIT: On a side note, WTF is wrong with my avatar?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

...


Um...


I dont hate any of those?


I dont see why would anyone actually hate any of the options... The more options, the better right?

I asked "features you don't care for", not "features you hate". Maybe I worded the OP poorly but I was asking, out of the typical selling points of a game, which do you value the least upon making a purchase?

 

[aguspal]

...


Um...


I dont hate any of those?


I dont see why would anyone actually hate any of the options... The more options, the better right?

I asked "features you don't care for", not "features you hate". Maybe I worded the OP poorly but I was asking, out of the typical selling points of a game, which do you value the least upon making a purchase?

oh Ok then.

Well, my original awnser still stands- I care very litte (not at all) about character creation modes and what not.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Dunno if this counts but crosshairs when hipfire-ing bothers me without end in fps's.

If you're hip-firing it can't be an FPS though, can it?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Modding in general and why I never seem to care for it after trying so many times on different games and then putting them aside forever and learning to enjoy the vanilla games for what they are not what they should be.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Modding in general and why I never seem to care for it after trying so many times on different games and then putting them aside forever and learning to enjoy the vanilla games for what they are not what they should be.

Some modding is fun on it's own - Garry's Mod, or Minecraft for that matter - but yeah, as a supplementary option it's not very enthralling. Build-your-own-level is specially aggravating. How is it going to be challenging to play through it if you built it yourself? At least that's my experience with that.

 

[RaikuFA]

Being only able to hold 2 guns at once.

I want some variety in my games. I want to be able to use what I want when I want.

 

[aguspal]

Modding in general and why I never seem to care for it after trying so many times on different games and then putting them aside forever and learning to enjoy the vanilla games for what they are not what they should be.

Oh, how I could forgot about this one.


Althougt modding comes from the fanbase... so not really a game feature but whatever.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Modding in general and why I never seem to care for it after trying so many times on different games and then putting them aside forever and learning to enjoy the vanilla games for what they are not what they should be.

Oh, how I could forgot about this one.


Althougt modding comes from the fanbase... so not really a game feature but whatever.

I should've included a edit-your-own-map poll option, I've always blatantly ignored them in every game I encountered.

 

[hermes]

Co-op. Particularly forced co-op (looking at you RE 5).
I have friends that can drop by and play some game with me for a couple hours, but if the game requires that I play the entire campaign with them or be forced to deal with a retarded AI, that is a game I can say now I won't complete.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Co-op. Particularly forced co-op (looking at you RE 5).
I have friends that can drop by and play some game with me for a couple hours, but if the game requires that I play the entire campaign with them or be forced to deal with a retarded AI, that is a game I can say now I won't complete.

Yeah, I love co-op up to the point where your friend won't make it over this week... or the next... so you wind up cheating on him or starting over another file.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Gargantuan bosses that look impressive in scope, but are beaten through very easy means, often times through a quick-time event.

For example, look at the Titan from Resistance 2. It's a huge, imposing creature. How do we beat it?

Step 1.) Run down linear sequence of paths (I don't think I even needed to dodge anything, if I remember correctly)

Step 2.) Pick up rocket launcher

Step 3.) *Boom*

For another example, think back to the Guardian boss fight in Darksiders 2. Sure, he was really big, and the music was spectacular, but could you really call it a challenging boss? Was finding out the method to beating him in any way difficult, what with his glowing weak points? (Note that I still enjoyed these two games, it's just that these boss fights were major disappointments for me, as they are in any game that handles them in a similar fashion).

It's gotten to the point where I don't even get excited when I see a large boss anymore, because they're usually beaten in such easy ways, and are made almost purely for the spectacle of "Oooh, look at what our graphics engine can do!".

Shadow of the Colossus, however, did it right (thank goodness for that, since it's the entire point of the game). Yes, the bosses had glowing weak points, but you had to discover them for yourself, and finding the methods to beat them and planning the best climbing routes while managing your grip gauge was actually a challenge.

 

[Xarathox]

Multiplayer tacked on to singleplayer games. Or, singleplayer tacked on to multiplayer games.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Gargantuan bosses that look impressive in scope, but are beaten through very easy means, often times through a quick-time event.

Funnily enough this is how the final colossus from Shadow of the Colossus felt to me - a linear obstacle coursed, followed by a linear climbing course, during which you're in no particular danger of anything as Malus can't attack you. He's not even moving. It looks impressive the first time around but once you realize how you're supposed to take him down it's a little underwhelming (he just haves the one sigil, too).

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Gargantuan bosses that look impressive in scope, but are beaten through very easy means, often times through a quick-time event.

Funnily enough this is how the final colossus from Shadow of the Colossus felt to me - a linear obstacle coursed, followed by a linear climbing course, during which you're in no particular danger of anything as Malus can't attack you. He's not even moving. It looks impressive the first time around but once you realize how you're supposed to take him down it's a little underwhelming (he just haves the one sigil, too).

I agree. I preferred the Colossi that were in more wide-open areas, with more freedom of movement. Not only did it make figuring out how to kill them more of a challenge, seeing them compared to plains and mountain ranges just made them seem more . . . well, colossal.

Despite the annoyances with the final colossus, I didn't mind it too much. The colossus I just can't stand is the tortoise-like one (the 9th). Maybe it was just a problem with the PS3 re-release, but getting the geysers to actually knock him over was such a finicky and unreliable process. It failed to work so many times that I thought I had the wrong method entirely, and had to check an FAQ just to be certain. It was enjoyable enough once I actually got to the climbing part, but getting to that point is such a pain, and for all the wrong reasons.