What does it take to ruin a game for you?

Aug 12, 2013
81
0
0
Tarcolt said:
I know I often get a new game with high hopes, usually because I've done some research or a friend highly recommended it, but occasionally it just lets me down in a way I couldn't have predicted, or its really good up until a point.

So I ask, what does it take for you guys to go off a game.

Bad graphics, poor controls, constant crashes, annoying mechanics, poor character development, limited scope or maybe other people?
In one word: gamers.
 

KarmaTheAlligator

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,472
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
KarmaTheAlligator said:
Bad controls and a reliance on the physics engine for puzzles, making the solution luck based instead of skill or intelligence based. Random loot comes in as well, but that's not as big of an issue since I'll usually find a way around it.
I love random loot I'd much rather have it with a chance to get better equipment randomly than have static equip like Skyrim and go through them all in a few hours and not even get to the middle of the game....

But at the end of the day they have have the option to choose which loot system you want one would be you get less loot but most of it is mid to high level based on location and your level the other is typical random generation where you get alot of loot but most of it is lower quality but you have a chance to get the random higher quality stuff(based on location and your level) than the other setting that's based on lower quantity of higher quality items.
I meant Borderlands type of random loot where you'll get something better every now and then, but all the best (as in, most fun, not necessarily the most powerful) toys are something you're going to have to grind a lot to get. Fallout 3/NV loot also came to mind, with the fact that most containers have nothing of value in them.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Assuming we can discount gamebreaking bugs (with the rise of early access as a preferred model for some releases, it's far more common than it used to be)

Storyline spoilers tend to make me fizzle out.
If a game is too easy, that can kill my drive to play too.
Kingdoms of Amalur was beautiful, but so easy I just couldn't face any more after reaching the desert.
 

Naraku578

New member
Dec 3, 2014
43
0
0
Most of the time I am pretty good at finishing games, but any combination of the two can kill it for me.

1. Awful/terrible gameplay will slowly poison and drain any aspiration I have for a game.
2. Predictable/ terrible story this can remove all motivation to play the game for any significant amount of time.
 

Danbo Jambo

New member
Sep 26, 2014
585
0
0
Electronic Arts usually.

I can't say one thing ever ruins a game for me in isolation. I've loved great, atmospheric RPGs with "meh" combat like Risen 2, I've loved "meh" RPGs with great combat too. Bad stories, bad mechanics etc. - it's all really about the game as an entire package, and so long as that works and the overall experience is good then I'm happy.
 

James Elmash

New member
Jan 6, 2014
17
0
0
I'll slug through most games I own, even ones I despise, just to get to the credits. 3 exceptions. Dishonored, which I ditched because the controls were outright broken (it wouldn't let me use my right hand after the intro sequence) and Dark Souls 2 & Majora's Mask (which I ditched because it felt like my efforts no matter how well I did, had no impact on the game world)
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
KarmaTheAlligator said:
ZippyDSMlee said:
KarmaTheAlligator said:
Bad controls and a reliance on the physics engine for puzzles, making the solution luck based instead of skill or intelligence based. Random loot comes in as well, but that's not as big of an issue since I'll usually find a way around it.
I love random loot I'd much rather have it with a chance to get better equipment randomly than have static equip like Skyrim and go through them all in a few hours and not even get to the middle of the game....

But at the end of the day they have have the option to choose which loot system you want one would be you get less loot but most of it is mid to high level based on location and your level the other is typical random generation where you get alot of loot but most of it is lower quality but you have a chance to get the random higher quality stuff(based on location and your level) than the other setting that's based on lower quantity of higher quality items.
I meant Borderlands type of random loot where you'll get something better every now and then, but all the best (as in, most fun, not necessarily the most powerful) toys are something you're going to have to grind a lot to get. Fallout 3/NV loot also came to mind, with the fact that most containers have nothing of value in them.

Most generated loot systems are based on spam, the majority of what you find is crap, some of it is better the best of stuff is either rare or placed by hand which is rarely generated in some fashion.


Radnomly random ramble.... GO!


The elder scrolls games do not randomly generate equipment as they randomly generate placement(they have "hand made" equipment and Skyrim has the least of any of them ><). Basically they use a list system(that I can not use for the life of me mod wise) that tells a container within range to use what list based on your level to fill with items, this info gets replaced based on time factors.


Both systems can be rather lacking, for me I'd want a spam based system that is able to randomly generate higher stuff better so that randomly I might get some super equipment. This they do not really make tho from the hours I sank into Sacred it seemed close enough to it.


While I love a loot system devs really need to balance it, have loot built/placed randomly based on the player characters level and try and not impede what can be built/placed(IE you always seem to find junk, make it so you do find alot of junk but you also have a good chance of finding good stuff). Have hard to get to/secret places and boss loot have a higher chance of randomly generating something really good however unlike most spam systems make sure that the equipment is useable to you by keeping a statistics list handy and see what you use the most be it attack/defense/weapon/magic type and also one can do this with a group just compare the top 2 and the bottom 2 and give the bottom 2 about 10-20% more of chance of getting something. Something like that.


Then once that is made you can make a less spam focused version, you find less equipment but it tends to be better quality loot, hard to get to/secret places and boss loot maybe max out the cap by 33%/1/3rd so you might find something better than the standard.


I would not recommend requirement level requirements, they are the worst filler/drag gimmick made, and frankly I am not to fond of limiting weapons to classes but for arguments sake get rid of level reqs but still use a stat system to figure out DPS for attack/defend and alternative(movement speed, ect. Stuff like luck would go to critical which is attack based). Next comes class type this just holds info based on what you use the most as far as attack/defense/weapon/magic type you would use this to ensure most of the better drops are compatible with the player character.


Using the info above figure out equipment levels based on those factors, using those factors you could then easily place and build equipment based around the player character.

Basically this is one way to make a a loot drop system less spamy.(than my ramblings LOL)
LOL


uuhggg.... I'll crawl back under my rock now >>
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
Playing a lot of online games, all it takes is a shit community, the "Day 1 Know your role or GTFO WTF U Doing" crowd. I like MMOs, I enjoy aspects of social playing but this is why I stopped playing WoW and never gave LoL more than a glance and a shudder. This is partially why I continue to play ESO - the people you play with can be just as important as core gameplay mechanics, if not more.
 

Zeras

New member
Apr 2, 2013
124
0
0
ZippyDSMlee said:
lycanthrope008 said:
Dead Space 3 ruined the series for me
That was there plan all along!(kinda like bioware and and everything but KOTOR2)
Which is truly diabolical since Bioware wasn't even the developer who made KoTOR 2!
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Unlikeable characters, shit pacing and pretentiousness.

Boring gameplay too, but if a game already hits those three then its fate is already sealed.
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
Things which interrupt the flow of the game and arbitrary difficulty rules.

A recent example of both is playing Hitman Blood Money on the second highest difficulty which has only 3 saves, they're not enough I wound up not using them and getting screwed, repeating the same things over and over until I played through again on Normal with it's adequate 7 save limit.

My problem with this? The AI on the harder difficulties is tougher and smarter and that's what I want t fight against. It's not that I"m save scumming, just getting past major hurdles and not having the flow interrupted. The seven save limit of Normal is perfect, but I'm stuck playing with less opponents because both rules come hand in hand.

Another example of that is Skyrim on max difficulty where starting out mobs have high HP and can one shot you. One or the other (preferably high damaging decent HP mobs) would be fine in my mind but it's all or nothing making me have to drop it down until I'm high enough to fight well, but by that point you guy does so well difficulty doesn't do much to add a challenge.
 

Chester Rabbit

New member
Dec 7, 2011
1,004
0
0
Most of the time, all it takes is this.

You people.

It's sad I know but for some reason I value everyone else's opinion over my own and for some reason no matter who it's coming from i always see it as more informed and better thought out than mine.

What's worse is the negative ones always seem to be the ones that stick with me over the positives.

I really do hate my mind.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,268
1,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
Most things I can get around if the planets are in alignment (by which I mean, if the game appeals perfectly in enough other ways). I got around difficult combat for Silent Hill 2 because the atmosphere, the plot, the design was all so rich.


On the other hand, I'm often put off diving into a new franchise if it seems too intimidating: if it's on the eighth game in a coherent running series. This is why it took so long for me to get into Mass Effect: I knew they were on the third game, and each game supposedly had a wealth of side-content and DLC and aarghflub. It's the reason I'm putting off getting into Dragon Age right now.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
It doesn't take a lot for a game to be ruined for me. The Assassins's Creed games have been ruined for me because of all the tailing missions they throw in each game. AC IV was the worst though. Having both land and sea tailing missions was beyond stupid. A good majority of the plater base hates them yet the idiots at Ubisoft keep putting them in.

Far Cry 3 was ruined for me because of the insta-fail stealth missions. Insta-fails missions in general are pretty stupid to begin with.

Escort missions have to take the cake though. They are considered the bane of many games and yet some developers still add them.

More games need to copy the style of True Crime: Streets of LA. That game was pretty good. I loved how if you failed a mission it would let you continue on. You would get a slightly worse ending but at least it didn't insta-fail you for bullcrap.
 

rorychief

New member
Mar 1, 2013
100
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
And the fact that in some cases, the only reason certain events happened were because the game took control away from me to show me a cutscene, pissed me off.
Ugh, right withcha man. I remember that being a huge thing in Dead Space 3. Even the final boss battle {spoilers for shitty end of DS 3}

A villain has his macguffin key inside a doomsday device that while vertical does nothing, but turned horizontal starts destroying the world. He turns it and the ground starts rumbling and a piece of falling debris crushes him flat. Now the process is starting and the world is tearing apart, only instead of stepping forward and just turning the key to the off position, the main character has a massive conversation with his female sidekick insisting she jump in the one remaining shuttle and take off to safety leaving him behind.
a) there is no reason he can't just turn the key that's right there and both jump in the shuttle.
b) It is completely against her character to abandon him, which she does, undermining all her personality established in DS2.
c) The key takes off on a free floating chunk, the main character flies between chunks shooting enemies until he arrives at the key, where he either just turns it like he always should have or fights a monster.

This was insane. The devs obviously wanted a set piece but in introducing it all I could think was, 'Why are the devs taunting me with how contrived this all is. Is this a joke.'
 

Timeless Lavender

Lord of Chinchilla
Feb 2, 2015
197
0
0
It depends tho. If a game have horrible story but great gameplay then I do not mind. Or even a game with horrible gameplay but interesting story I can get a pass. But it seems that I have no tolerance for any game with game breaking bugs, generic art styles or horrible/annoying main characters.

This is more genre specific but I can not stand first person perspective. I have terrible judgement when jumping or walking in general. Also, I have motion sickness when playing these games.
 

Oroboros

New member
Feb 21, 2011
316
0
0
In a game series, when a developer can't seem to keep a consistent tone, gameplay style, setting elements, or storyline. Constant retcons to the plot or setting etc really turn me off.

The constant shifts in gameplay, the setting and story retcons, the see-saw like shifts in tone and aesthetics...that sort of thing has made me completely lose interest in both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series after the first game in each franchise.

There is one thing that a game (specifically rpgs) can do in a series that will absolutely guarantee I will never touch them again.

A lot of rpgs...Bioware rpgs come to mind first and foremost- let you build up a character over several games. Thus you tend to get really attached to those characters. So when another game or book or whatever comes out and sets a canon class, gender, species, alignments....favorite color (you get the idea) the series just isn't about my character anymore, so I just don't have that attachment anymore...with the added insult of essentially being told 'your character/story doesn't count, live with it'.

I got burned twice by that in regards to Bioware games that I can think of...with Baldur's Gate, and with the KoTOR series.

So while I still love those two series, I will *not* be playing ToR, nor would I be interested in any sort of followup to Baldur's Gate, should it ooze out from the woodworks...'Murder in Baldur's Gate', a campaign for D&D 5th edition already helped turn me sour towards 5th edition forgotten realms.


TL;DR version: Bioware is one of my favorite *and* least favorite game developers, because while they make wonderful games, they usually check all the boxes for reasons for me *not* to buy a sequel.