Poll: Game features you don't care for

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Small and pointless delays. Such as menus 'shoowshing' in through animations. It may only be very short animations, but when you've seen that 1 second animation thousands of times, it fucking adds up. Thing you could do by muscle memory in under 2 seconds is dragged out to 6+ seconds because you've got to wait for the menus to be pretty. It's a tiny grievance, but one that constantly haunts me.
 
Oct 2, 2012
1,267
0
0
For me it is multiplayer. I'm not a biggest fan of interacting with people (I get enough of that at my job) and online communities make everything too serious business.
I'm more of a single player or co-op kind of guy myself.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
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.
 

LightningBanks

New member
Apr 15, 2009
790
0
0
GOD DAMN IT I had the perfect one literally hours ago whilst thinking to myself XD

But there is one I can think of, games that plan to be trilogies/franchises. I'm not against sequels but sometimes I feel like im being roped into some sort of 3 time payment plan, if I play the first they're going to make me want to play the second. Which wouldn't be so bad if I didn't like to play so many different games, I just don't have the money for everything and sequels to games I've already played get in the way of finding new experiences.

TrevHead said:
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).
I generally go by how much I play it rather than what content it offers. it may offer 5 hours but if I want to play it twice then thats 10 really. But I actually prefer a game to either be really short or a game you play over months (tf2 counter strike etc) because if its short I'll definitely finish it and if it really is that short I can always trade in.

Whispering Cynic said:
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?
Ive only gone for them if Im looking for something to do. While most games are quite mundane in this department, theres been a few which has added gameplay because its made me do something that I wouldn't have done normally.
 

Gearran

New member
Oct 19, 2007
148
0
0
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

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Akalabeth said:
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

Admin of Catoholics Anonymous
Nov 11, 2011
11,597
0
0
TrevHead said:
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

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,309
0
0
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.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Grouchy Imp said:
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

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
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

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
QTE

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

I'm off to cry now.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Souplex said:
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

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
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.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
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

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
Snotnarok said:
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

All hail the Pun Meister!
Jun 25, 2011
1,285
0
0
Miss G. said:
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

New member
Jun 23, 2011
281
0
0
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".

CaptainThom said:
Achievements really don't see the point.
Achievements are only an annoyance, but those go with the features I hate, together with QTEs.