Poll: Game features you don't care for

DeepReaver

New member
Feb 25, 2009
80
0
0
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

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
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

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
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 :D )
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?

DeepReaver said:
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.

Johnny Novgorod said:
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

New member
May 15, 2013
297
0
0
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

New member
Feb 13, 2013
135
0
0
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).
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Multiplayer can be great, if it's designed that way from the ground floor. If it's tacked on in the last three months of development because some marketer insisted an otherwise single-player game had to have it, to the detriment of polishing or extending the single-player work the dev team has been working on and actually wants to be working on instead...

Yeah, I get it; everyone wants to believe their game will be the next Call of Duty. How many people do you think there are playing multiplayer Bioshock 2 or Spec Ops: The Line right now...?

Multiplayer is the most egregious offender, but any of the poll's entries can to varying degrees be superfluous, under-developed, or just plain gawd-awful. Worlds that offer extended play through use of cut-and-paste. Cooperative modes that create unbalanced and/or broken play. Games that are "replayable" because you only get to see significant content by performing nigh-impossible tasks with limited windows of opportunity to perform them. "Extra" content that amounts to recoloring a few skins and toggling a few numbers. New Game plus modes that cause the intricate balancing act of the game you just played to fall to pieces and become utterly tedious. And so on.
 

ZforZissou

New member
Oct 19, 2008
152
0
0
Both Multiplayer and Co-Op just don't do it for me.

I rarely ever use multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect 3, Metro: Last Light, etc.). I can't help but feel like tacking multiplayer on a game matters to sales. Even if it does, the effect is probably not worth the effort the devs have to put into making it.

I rarely ever use co-op because either I have no friends or my friends don't generally enjoy the games I enjoy. One notable exception to this, for me, has been Borderlands 2, which one of my friends and I have been playing the SHIT out of. I can't say I would enjoy that game at all if it wasn't for the co-op.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.
Ah, Tamagochi. I'm still trying to decide whether they were a game per se or simply an early form of electronic water torture.

I never owned one myself but I did have the PC equivalent: Creatures. Whoever made that 'game' was an evil genius.
 

WOPR

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,912
0
0
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...

...If anyone is wondering, I was gifted Borderlands 2 over summer sale, so this is too fresh in my mind...

After I ignore the quest thing I'll probably lean with "Grouchy Imp" and say presistant worlds. I'm tired of playing a game for an hour, having something to do, then come back noticing I have to do that hour again from the start because I didn't finish the full 2-3 hour section.
 

Maledictus010

New member
Jul 11, 2009
8
0
0
Trophies and/or achievements are nonsense to me. Seems like a waste of developer's time, I'd rather see that time used for polish or content. Plus, it's a big immersion killer to see some stupid achievement pop-up in Steam after you've had the boss fight of your life.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
ZforZissou said:
Both Multiplayer and Co-Op just don't do it for me.

I rarely ever use multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect 3, Metro: Last Light, etc.)
Wha? They yanked multiplayer from Last Light to focus on the campaign.

I agree with you with tacked on multiplayer and co-op although, unless the devs pull a Valve and support it those modes end up looking like ghost towns after a few months.
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
Other - Motion controls... god do I hate them. Honestly, the main reason I'm not buying an Xbox One is not because of their DRM fiasco but because of the emphasis on Kinect. I am very afraid that more and more games will try to implement Kinect and that is something I dread. I can only say I played a handful of games that didn't have sucky motion controls and they were all on the Wii. Everything I've played on the Kinect just seems like waving your arms around and the game playing itself.
 

Dominic Crossman

New member
Apr 15, 2013
399
0
0
Does qte count on this thread?
I don't understand people not liking length. A short game is a game that I will not buy, but maybe rent.
 

Tom_green_day

New member
Jan 5, 2013
1,384
0
0
I think 'replayability' is a word thrown around a lot, that doesn't really mean much. You can replay any game. Does that mean it would be fun to do so? No. Take the Mass Effect series- apart from some details, such as squad and cutscenes, each playthough is the same- the same levels, the same enemies, the same powers and weapons used mostly, and it's no fun to replay. On the other hand Black Ops, which is a short linear campaign, is the game I've done most playthroughs of on 4, because it's shorter and less complex.
 

doodger

New member
May 19, 2010
166
0
0
TornadoCreator said:
If only game devs looked at forums like this(...)
Except that they don't. Game cost so much to develop that they need to add in every single little thing that might just tip the sales over. Saying you are developping a shooter with coop, dlc and multiplayer content is easier to pitch to your investors than saying you are making a single player game with "no replay value".

OT: Multiplayer added on to single player only games is my biggest problem amongst those mentionned. Spec ops:the line comes to mind: the multiplayer was farmed out to another studio for a quick cash in. Not only that, but where the single player is an epic experience on the horrors of war, the online aspect goes completely against everything the single player tried to say.

Extra content(DLC, I assume) does not annoy me as much, but it's certainly not a factor in wether a game is appealing or not.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
Multiplayer, I rather go outside and meet with me friends rather then go online in a game with a bunch of strangers.
 

CrimsonBlaze

New member
Aug 29, 2011
2,252
0
0
Definitely unnecessary or uncalled for multiplayer (more specifically online multiplayer).

I'm so glad were off that stupid "if it doesn't have multiplayer it won't sell" bandwagon that ever developer was on a few years back and giving us plenty of great titles with single player campaigns being boggled down by their abysmal or sub par multiplayer.
 

ZforZissou

New member
Oct 19, 2008
152
0
0
Ed130 said:
ZforZissou said:
Both Multiplayer and Co-Op just don't do it for me.

I rarely ever use multiplayer (Spec Ops: The Line, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect 3, Metro: Last Light, etc.)
Wha? They yanked multiplayer from Last Light to focus on the campaign.

I agree with you with tacked on multiplayer and co-op although, unless the devs pull a Valve and support it those modes end up looking like ghost towns after a few months.
Oh, I didn't know that. Good on them. I just assumed it was still there, and didn't care to look.
 

DanielBrown

Dangerzone!
Dec 3, 2010
3,838
0
0
Multiplayer and co-op, unless it's an MMO where it's kind of important.
I used to play Counter-Strike daily for hours back when I was a young teenager(CS 1.5, fuck yiiis) and feel I've had my fair share of it. Besides, all the horror stories I hear today about the vocal brats makes me stay away even more.