The most worthless game mechanics/features
- Thread starter josemlopes
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sticky cover systems. There is no need to attach me to a wall for me to take cover. The game often has perfectly good movement controls. If I want to be in cover I can easily use those controls to move behind something and stay there without breaking any sense of control/mechanical consistency. It is unnecessary and only makes my experience worse.
Im quite surprised I don't think ive seen quick time events listed yet! When a game is set up to incorporate them through out the entire game like Dragons Lair it makes sense since that's the mechanic. Only when your running through some action game for several hours no problem to all the sudden be required to hit buttons that flash on the screen to not die when you haven't needed to the whole time so far....just UGH!!!
Unexplained regen health, like in COD. Breaks all form of tactics really, hate most games that pull it off. And while I like both Metro games I'm not playing it on anything lower than Ranger Hardcore and I still find it too easy...
Tacked on multiplayer is probably the worst offender. On paper, multiplayer in ME3 and Assassin's Creed sounds interesting (one's about the struggles of the nobodies in the galactic war and the other created the opportunity for a future era protagonist to fight a menagerie of psychos ala Kill Bill or No More Heroes, but stealthier). However, the real consequence is inflated development costs as well as those associated with maintaining the server... so unrealistic sales expectations rise even higher and a game just can't win if it doesn't reach that fantasy number in the head of the suits.
Any door opening mechanic in non-stealth games. I'm walking into the damn door, its highly doubtful I'm trying to dry hump it for some reason, have the character open the thing himself.
Sprinting toggles have always confused me for as long as we've had standard-issue analog controls.
"Hacking" mechanics that are just an excuse to throw some variation on a generic puzzle game into an unrelated game.
Sprinting toggles have always confused me for as long as we've had standard-issue analog controls.
"Hacking" mechanics that are just an excuse to throw some variation on a generic puzzle game into an unrelated game.
Oh, another one that came to mind:
Do 10,000,000 points of damage to the boss monster! ...Now, push this button (light this explosive, drop this heavy weight, radio in an air strike, release this thing that hates the monster, etc., etc...), to actually kill the monster!
...Preferably while the monster continues to flash or show other signs of taking damage with every conventional hit! Bonus points if the game proudly gives you no freaking clue that the things you've been doing for the first 99% of the fight are now meaningless and no idea what you're now supposed to do differently!
Do 10,000,000 points of damage to the boss monster! ...Now, push this button (light this explosive, drop this heavy weight, radio in an air strike, release this thing that hates the monster, etc., etc...), to actually kill the monster!
...Preferably while the monster continues to flash or show other signs of taking damage with every conventional hit! Bonus points if the game proudly gives you no freaking clue that the things you've been doing for the first 99% of the fight are now meaningless and no idea what you're now supposed to do differently!
Doesn't COD Ghost has first person leaning? I think it does. Also you one button to switch example doesn't make sense. Now, I have not played the game so I am just going off of what you wrote. It one button switch, you still need a button to do said action. One can button switches and one actual does the action (use grenade or melee). Now that is just what i get from you example. Maybe, I am just not understanding.Phoenixmgs said:
I also really hate leaning mechanics. I just see them as a way in encourage camping. Now you can hind behind a wall and shoot but maybe that is just my experience with the mechanic.
The grand claim was that shooter are devolving, which is wrong. They are just evolving in a direction that you don't like.
The internet from GTA V. At first I thought this would be a great feature. A game with it's own internet that you could use to help you with stuff in the game, like looking up someones Facebook (lifehacker in game) to find out where they are. Look up places in Los Santos by doing a search online to find out where it is. But in reality it wasn't as useful as the real internet is, more of a parody.
That's a legacy feature from the days of Diablo. Back in 1996. Welcome to gaming on the 486.Jasper van Heycop said:
Anyway, the feature I hate as a staunch old schooler is Touch and Motion controls. They're far too obtuse to do anything but hinder the experience and that's if the controls even work in the first place. Note to anyone who is a fan of the kinect because you can issue a voice command to make it turn on your tv and console, it would take me just as much time to walk up to you, punch you square in the dick, and steal your wallet while you cry on the ground before giving you a parting curbstomp.
Blood on the screen, heartbeat noises, loss of hearing, screen going back and white.spartan231490 said:
If you're going to have regenerating health, at least make it like Halo and have a simple health bar.
Ah, Alone in the Dark. That game had so much potential... oh so much.
In Silent Hill 4: The Room, Eileen manages to turn the game's second half into an escort mission. She's fragile, pretty intelligent, but sometimes about as smart as wet cardboard, and the only way to heal her is by using very rare items that you need to get the good ending, and turn your shitty apartment back into a safe haven every once in a while.
I like her character, and it's supposed to endear me to her, but she's just a pain in the neck. Your best bet is running away from her. And if she takes too much damage, then you actually start to take damage from her.
The ghosts are also just an excuse to force backtracking. Again, a good idea (recurring, invincible enemies) but the fact that 4 are unique, and the rest are the same just makes it an annoying feature.
Edit: It's not a game mechanic, but it's part of the franchise's "charm".
Link's character. He's not a character; he's just an idea. A Gary Stu-esque stoic goes to save a girl. Now repeat that for, how long now? About 35-ish years? And milk it for all its worth... I'm sorry, can someone tell me how Link is anything but an idea?
Link's characters in Wind Waker (which is kind of shared in The Minish Cap), Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask, and Four Swords are all pretty good; they all have their own personalities and goals. Link as an idea, however, is basically "hot bishounen goes to save hot bishoujo, kills guy who lives in desert with a really big nose, more attractive people, end of game, thank you for your $40", and all to much is he just this idea without any character.
Idea that is profitable=/=good idea, or decent storytelling
Idea/acrchetype=/=character. Having a tsundere isn't a character; it's an idea, and people who write tsunderes, but not having that tsundere, an idea, be a character, are lazy.
In Silent Hill 4: The Room, Eileen manages to turn the game's second half into an escort mission. She's fragile, pretty intelligent, but sometimes about as smart as wet cardboard, and the only way to heal her is by using very rare items that you need to get the good ending, and turn your shitty apartment back into a safe haven every once in a while.
I like her character, and it's supposed to endear me to her, but she's just a pain in the neck. Your best bet is running away from her. And if she takes too much damage, then you actually start to take damage from her.
The ghosts are also just an excuse to force backtracking. Again, a good idea (recurring, invincible enemies) but the fact that 4 are unique, and the rest are the same just makes it an annoying feature.
Edit: It's not a game mechanic, but it's part of the franchise's "charm".
Link's character. He's not a character; he's just an idea. A Gary Stu-esque stoic goes to save a girl. Now repeat that for, how long now? About 35-ish years? And milk it for all its worth... I'm sorry, can someone tell me how Link is anything but an idea?
Link's characters in Wind Waker (which is kind of shared in The Minish Cap), Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask, and Four Swords are all pretty good; they all have their own personalities and goals. Link as an idea, however, is basically "hot bishounen goes to save hot bishoujo, kills guy who lives in desert with a really big nose, more attractive people, end of game, thank you for your $40", and all to much is he just this idea without any character.
Idea that is profitable=/=good idea, or decent storytelling
Idea/acrchetype=/=character. Having a tsundere isn't a character; it's an idea, and people who write tsunderes, but not having that tsundere, an idea, be a character, are lazy.
And that character is...? Having him not speak is just an excuse to have a blank slate for the player to project him/herself onto. With the exception of a few games, he's not so much a character as he is paper meche who gets mountains of fangirls.cypher-raige said:
The party conflicts in Mount and Blade. I get that not all personalities are going to mesh well but solving it in M&B lacks depth. You side with guy A, guy B, or just tell them to piss off. I can negotiate with merchants, bandits and kings but I can't even solve a dispute between my own men? Ugh.
Because in Witcher lore, potions are toxic poison. They have to be handled with incredible care. Reckless consumption of a potion can result in a Witcher OD'ing. It also takes time for the effects to take hold, which is why they are drunk during meditation. That's why you cannot chug them like every other fantasy game. It isn't a game mechanic, it's an established part of Witcher lore, and I like it.bug_of_war said:
I used to think that as well, until I used my Ampharos in White 2 to take down the Elite Four Fighting-type guys entire team. I used Cotton Guard twice to raise its defence through the roof, let his whole team wail on it and get paralyzed as a result, and used confuse ray on each to cripple them further. They had already lost before I'd used a damage-dealing move, and I didn't even have something that'd be super effective! Attribute-raising comes in handy in end-game fights, but I'll agree; not so much against the umpteenth trainer on route whatever.Whateveralot said:
Amen to that - that's partially why I really liked The Last of Us. They brought back a health bar that required first aid kits to replenish! Not sure how just wrapping up a bullet wound without extracting the bullet works exactly but it's better than your health magically coming back. Baby steps...0takuMetalhead said:
Na I don't mind them either. If it's telegraphed and you can negate it it's not cheap. I hate them if you have a boss that is an easy hit sponge for half of the fight and then can 1 hit kill or near 1 hit kill for the second half though. Makes the first half feel like its just there to waste your damn time.bug_of_war said:
The witcher: they probably want you to prepare based on surroundings rather than being a reactionary thing but most don't bother unless its a boss fight. That and if I recall correctly (I might not, been a while) Geralt can't chug them whenever in the books because they are toxic so initial effect tends fuck him up a bit or they take a while to start working and some have other unwanted side effects so they would want to keep it at least somewhat in line with what he can do in the books. He doesn't use them much.
From what I read from The Escapist Review [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10713-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Review-Dogs-of-War.2], the leaning is only contextual (when by corners like BF4), which is rather useless. I lean out in the open to correct my aim when my aim is off by a little bit, leaning left or right is easier to correct your aim than moving the crosshair plus you have less chance to over-correct since you can only lean slightly left or right and I'm also moving making me a harder target to hit instead of just standing still moving a crosshair. In MOH Warfighter, which has both a lean and a slide, you can win so many gunfights by sliding then leaning at the end of the slide when another player spots you first. The best player in the game said he hated playing against me the most in the whole game because I'm always moving. I actually don't lean around corners much because it limits your mobility and if someone rushes you, you're kinda screwed. Removing a lean removes a lot of dynamics from each and every gunfight and reduces the skill gap between players as good players lean to correct their aim while average players do not. Also, leaning doesn't take away anything from the control game there is no shooter that I have played that couldn't add leaning to the control scheme while not taking anything out.TorchofThanatos said:
Melee and grenade buttons waste more buttons then weapon switching. Say you shoot with L1 and R1 and say R2 is weapon switch (that's 3 buttons). You would switch to a grenade (R2), then press L1 (to aim the grenade) and R1 to then throw it. Same exact thing with melee (but switch to a knife). Whereas if you have a grenade button (say R2), a melee button (say square), and normal shooting buttons (L1 and R1); that's 4 buttons used instead of 3 buttons. Being able to chuck nades at a moment's notice ruins shooters as you then need no premeditation to throw a grenade, you can just chuck it at the tail end of a gunfight you know you're losing.
Thus, shooters are only devolving. Think about how basic the standard FPS is, you can only move your character and aim, that's it. You can't even move your character forward while looking behind you (something you can do in real life and in TPSs). FPSs are usually too basic for me to even play, I need leaning or sliding, more moves/abilities for me to use against my opponents than just out-shooting them, it's just so boring.