Poll: Game features you don't care for

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
>Length

Hmm, depends. If you can make the game long and and varied, it's fun. Otherwise it overstays its welcome.

>Co-op

This is fine as long as the singleplayer main game DOES NOT rely on co-op.

If you're gonna make a co-op based game, make it like L4D.


>Multiplayer

I can understand multiplayer, but I hate games that rely on their multiplayer.

>Replayability
>New Game Plus

I really like these. They give a game more life to me.

>Extra Content

Depends how it's implimented. I dislike paying more money for a game I already own unless it's a huge bundle of content (expansions).

>Other

Visual customization (in multiplayer) for things you can't see. First person shooter games keep trying to have this. If I'm going to work on how my character looks I WANT to see it when I play.

For singleplayer, I can mostly deal with it for roleplaying purposes, and more often you get the option for third-person mode. But otherwise, I'm not into showing off E-Peen in TF2. If people wanted my hats, I gave them.
 

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
This is going to sound weird, but re-playability (alluding to single player). This specific to just me, probably, but when I play a game through once, I very rarely ever touch it again. There's only been two games in recent memory where I've been through them again, and that's MGS4 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Multiplayer is fine, since re-playability is kind of its thing, but as far as single player goes, I couldn't care less.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
I don't care much for competitive multiplayer, but co-op can make pretty much any game tempting. I love gaming the most when I get to do it with my partner.
 

MetalMagpie

New member
Jun 13, 2011
1,523
0
0
CabooseVD said:
Quick time events didn't make?
According to the OP, this is a list of selling points, not game features in general. I didn't think QTEs were generally advertised on the box.

Although I could be wrong. People have considered some pretty weird things worthy of box-space (presumably when the game has no redeeming features at all).
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,465
3,005
118
CabooseVD said:
Quick time events didn't make?
I think Quick Time Events aren't advertised that much nowadays. Every action game has them to some degree, seeing as most actions are shoved into contextual-sensitive buttons and the game will prompt you to press them for a short period of time to succeed in whatever you're doing. Take Arkham City. Lightning bolts show up over enemies' heads whenever they're about to strike you, prompting you to press the counter button to deflect them. How is this any different from a Quick Time Event? And yet nobody would criticize Arkham City for its QTEs. They're pain (or just boring) if you base your whole game around them, as in for-every-little-thing, like RE6.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
Completionist game padding. What I call Easter Egg Hunting in game. I can't stand games that forcibly insert random stuff for you to go and collect, for no real reason other than to collect them and get an achievement. The flags in Assassin's Creed 1 for example. Totally pointless, and annoying. I get that the game devs want you to explore the fun cool world they spent months/years creating, but really why should I stick my nose into EVERY freaking corner and house and closet in the game, looking for useless trinkets that aren't there for any purpose? Busywork annoys me to no end in video games.

For me the inFamous games did this thing in the best manner. The shards you were collecting had an in-game reason for being scattered everywhere, you had an in-game method to help you find them (the pulse radar thingy to locate nearby ones), and there was a practical reason for doing it. (it increased your power pool for using your abilities). THAT kind of Easter Egg Hunting is tolerable to me, when it makes sense to the story of the game, and isn't some kind of Metagaming , pokemon-esque "gotta Achieve em all!!" bullshit.
 

Gatx

New member
Jul 7, 2011
1,458
0
0
I don't like DLC weapons or items, especially when they're just automatically added into your inventory upon install. That means that they're usually automatically in your inventory every time you start a new game too. Like it ruins the opening of Borderlands 2 for me because I want to start from the beginning and scavenge new items, but instead I have these glaring yellow guns staring me in the face. They're getting really common nowadays as pre-order bonuses and what not so yeah...
 

Mister Chippy

New member
Jun 12, 2013
100
0
0
I've got a few:

Multiplayer in singleplayer based games. I'm sorry bioshock 2 and spec-ops, but that money spent on your multiplayer modes should have gone into the campaign. (Heck, spec-ops head guy said he thought the multiplayer mode was a waste himself.)

Singleplayer in multiplayer games. I'm looking at you brawl, battlefield, and COD. I don't know a single person who bought those games for the story mode, and yet for some reason those monstrous, railroaded wastes of money, time, and effort still exist instead of all the additional maps and stages that the companies could have made. (I understand COD does it because otherwise there is almost no difference between the individual games aside from some of the maps and guns, but still...)

New Game + also annoys me because its just a cheap way of getting out of including extra endgame content. "Beat our game? Well why not play it again, only we'll actually let you play on hard mode this time! Whaddaya mean you wanted to play on hard mode from the beginning?" Its worse when the progression in games is focused around the difficulty of finding good loot (BL2, FF:CC) to begin with that starting out with all your loot kinda ruins the flow of the game. Keeping your loot and levels is really the only reason to even include NG+ in the first place, because otherwise why don't you just have an extra difficulty available from the start for people who don't want to have to play your game twice?

Realism. Because how realistic we can make games is only going to get better, and when it does the games of yesterday that focused on realism will just be plain worse than current games. I like games I buy to have lasting appeal, and if in a few years your hyper-realistic physics and graphics are gonna be bad compared to the current offering why should I bother buying it?
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,189
0
0
Multiplayer is fine, I can take it or leave it and in some games it can be a fun option (Borderlands 2)

But the key word is option Don't add "Multiplayer Only" missions and areas to the core campaign. That's just teasing players who don't want to play with others or don't have friends with the same game. (Yeah I know most games have a "random player match" feature. I'd rather have a random wolverine shoved down my trousers.)


But Multiplayer has been pretty much every other post in this thread so...here's another pet peeve of mine.

Sniper Scopes without adjustable zoom.

The whole appeal of playing a sniper in an FPS game is the versatility of the tool. If you won't let me zoom in or out to optimal scope then all you've done is give me a firmly defined radius at which I can effectively use my weapon of choice.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Diddy_Mao said:
The whole appeal of playing a sniper in an FPS game is the versatility of the tool. If you won't let me zoom in or out to optimal scope then all you've done is give me a firmly defined radius at which I can effectively use my weapon of choice.
It's especially bad when you consider it would be easy to implement due to the fact that the triggers on controllers can tell how far you're pressing them.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
Dunno if this counts but crosshairs when hipfire-ing bothers me without end in fps's.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
That Red Dead Redemption multiplayer mode sure wasnt fun, right guys? And that Dark Souls, what a failure.

If its done right I really dont see why it isnt a cared feature, I get that multiplayer now is seen as a boogy man that makes budgets go sky high in games that dont need it but when you have a game that does it right it adds replayability, content and lenght.

For me is New Game+, I get the appeal that you get to do the same but with all the shit right from the start, still, its basicly something so simple (that honestly the decision to implement it comes from "would the game work or not", I really dont see it being an expensive thing to implement) and not that game changing that I really dont see it taking over any other option there.

So basicly, if it works with New Game+ it will probably have it, if it doesnt work that well it wont have it but either way you can just start from the start and choose a different skill set to play it diferently
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Out-of-game-leveling/upgrade systems in multiplayer titles.

It just doesn't do anything for me. It means it takes longer before I have full access to the content at full power, while players who simply have played the game for longer than me have an advantage because they have played the game for longer, not because they're necessarily better than me.
 

CabooseVD

New member
Nov 22, 2010
11
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
CabooseVD said:
Quick time events didn't make?
I think Quick Time Events aren't advertised that much nowadays. Every action game has them to some degree, seeing as most actions are shoved into contextual-sensitive buttons and the game will prompt you to press them for a short period of time to succeed in whatever you're doing. Take Arkham City. Lightning bolts show up over enemies' heads whenever they're about to strike you, prompting you to press the counter button to deflect them. How is this any different from a Quick Time Event? And yet nobody would criticize Arkham City for its QTEs. They're pain (or just boring) if you base your whole game around them, as in for-every-little-thing, like RE6.
I'm okay with them in Arkham City because they fit in the middle of combat, which bring a change of pace to the flow. I think the one's that everybody hate are the "Interactive Cut Scenes" those are what I remember being on the back of game boxes. But you're right, I don't think anyone has put it on there in a while though.
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
I don't really know about features that I don't like, don't know if I've found one.

Game mechanics on the other hand, that is where I get down to dislikes.

Escort missions.
Games that are built around a timer or at least portions of the game are built around it, like:
Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
LoZ: Phantom Hourglass
Dead Rising

I find it just doesn't fit for games that require exploration. If I'm exploring and getting the lay of the land, I want to have all the time in the world.

CaptainThom said:
Achievements really don't see the point.
Bragging rights.

Back in the day if you wanted to prove to your friends that you did something in a game, you would have to play it in front of them to show them.

Back then(and still today), I beat Megaman 2 regularly on the NES, and my friends back then never believed me. Today with other games I can just show an achievement.

Plus, achievements give me extra challenges to do in my games, sometimes they are things I never would have thought of doing.

The one problem I find is they really don't make many games these days that are as challenge as old NES games and the like.
 

CaptainThom

New member
Jun 24, 2013
55
0
0
LuisGuimaraes said:
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.
QTEs...How could i forget the dreaded QTEs
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
I can't think of any game that had both single player and multi-player were one didn't slightly detract from the other. All my favourite multiplayer games are only multiplayer games.

Just out of interest has anybody ever played the Spec-Ops: The Line multiplayer? I deliberately avoided it because I couldn't think of a worse way of completely undermining the plot of the single player.
 

porous_shield

New member
Jan 25, 2012
421
0
0
A feature I hate is regenerating health and iron sights. These games seem to swarm you with enemies to give your regenerating ass a challenge and it always feels like, at least to me, that I've knocked over a beehive. Added to that is with all these enemies coming at you, you're going to be looking down the sights a lot and I hate having that limited field of view and having to pop the gun back up to my face every couple of seconds. Feels something like the detective vision problem in Arkham Asylum where it was so useful you'd want it on most of the time but then you missed out on all the work gone into the games's aesthetic.

I've also seen games tout their cover based shooting and I think cover based shooters are a huge snorefest. Hiding behind a wall and waiting for the enemies to pop out of cover isn't how I want to spend the limited time I have for gaming.