What is the worst thing a game can do?

[Treblaine]

Worst thing a game can do? Failing to entertain in any way whatsoever is just about the worst thing a game can do, with the permanent internet connection requirement being a close second. Not much worse than having to play the same level over and over because you lost the connection to a server for half a second and your progress is no longer being saved.

-snip-

Did they say they wanted every character in a game to be like Duke Nukem or flat out retarded like Samus from Other M?

*checks their posts*

Nope, I can't seem to find that anywhere. It's ok to have different opinions, you know? No reason to fly off the handle and make out that someone is a muppet because they don't like silent protagonists.

I'm sorry, I'm just really mad when they give protagonists a voice for no god damn benefit. Other M is just the most poignant examples of how REALLY BAD it can get. How even as a rule, staying quiet can never be as bad as the worst things they could say. How does the saying go:

"better to stay quite and people suspect you are stupid, than open your mouth and confirm that you are"

But even when it is done right, it does not add to what has been achieved, it detracts from it.

And I have good reason to oppose attitudes for talking protagonists as it acts as if silent protagonists is just "lazy" or "Boring" as if it is simply a non-factor that something should be done about... rather than it being a DELIBERATE DESIGN DECISION to have the protagonist be silent. It serves a vital function to make the protagonist mute considering the limitations of DIRECT communications with NPCs, particularly your relationship with Alyx Vance because you neither say anything beyond your volition, nor are limited to a few pre-baked phrases.

This is an extremely personal and involving role playing experience. You are possessing the body of Gordon Freeman

The problem with a talking track of "your" voice is it leads to a kind of schizophrenia, you are totally within this role yet you are speaking from a consciousness not of your own (that is your as in you in the real world at the computer/console controls).

This isn't a problem for games where your involvement in character isn't huge, like for example Left 4 Dead where you drop into each character at random almost for only 40 minutes or so. But it IS when you are totally invested in a character like Half Life, Portal or Bioshock.

The stance that wants talking protagonists is one that wants FAR LESS immersion in CHARACTER, not immersion in game, in CHARACTER. How much do you REALLY feel that you are in this role, and how much does a voice not your own speaking from this role detract from that. Sure, your playable character may help immerse you in the GAME world in how they speak, what they comment on and object to, ect. But it detracts from player agency that is SO POWERFUL with the first person perspective. Speaking is a hugely consious thing, not like walking or a learned reflex (like loading a gun), speech doesn't work even with words you execute on command. Only yelps and gasps that are beyond conscious control. Ultimatley it is your adventure, your emotions and ideals matter and a chatty protagonist can't reflect or add to that.

For NPC communication subtlety and player agency is the key, little things like looking up and down rapidly to nod in agreement, shaking view side to side to shake your head to say "no". These are INVOLVING communication. Recordings representing your role communicating detract from your agency.

This is a hard concept to explain concisely. But Other M contrasted with Gordon Freeman says enough.

 

[iLeikHip]

Confirming DLC before the game is even out.

 

[Kuroneko97]

Not have an engaging storyline or have terrible graphics for its generation.

For somebody who sometimes reads Hentai for its story, the storyline means a lot for me to be interesting. That's why I don't play most first person shooters. Another thing: no matter how complicated the story, I have to be able to follow it. I hate playing a game with an AMAZING story, but I just can't understand it, or they never piece it all together.

And, being a very aesthetic person, I love playing a game with good graphics, but as I said it depends on the generation. I won't expect Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to have the best graphics unless they remade it, but it was pretty good for 1997. Final Fantasy XIII was a mindfuck for my eyes, and I enjoyed every last bit of the storyline. Sure, the gameplay was a tad easy, and a few bosses nearly impossible, but that's not what turns me away.

Now I have to go look at the Eidolon summons again.

 

[Treblaine]

Confirming DLC before the game is even out.

Sometimes the devs don't much of a choice.

For example even once the game is "done" that is the beginning of a LONG road before the game can ever actually be sold. For one, copies must be sent to SOO many interested parties like each platform licenser (microsoft/sony/nintendo), censorship boards across the world and journalist publications not to mention stockpile in manufacture and in retail. This can take many weeks, months even.

Sometimes publishers insist on the code being set and stable many months before release just in case something comes up and it is too unstable, the publisher likes room to manoeuvred. Particularly on consoles with a set-disc media that often has to be "packed in" for efficient reading, it's not like a downloadable data-file to be read off a HDD or Flash memory, files can't be moved around for greater efficiency later on.

In that time things develop and in that time projects that just weren't ready become a reality, they just need a bit more time. That's confirmed DLC. DLC offers flexibility not possible with disc based media, content that would have been dropped completley or re-used in a prequel can easily be doled out in DLC.

However, services like Steam are far more flexible. They allow games to change the launch-code right up till the 11th hour, so devs can keep tweaking and adding to the code throughout. There is little excuse for launch DLC unless it really is truly "extra" content for extra money. It should not be essential content like levels or maps.

 

[Versuvius]

Preaching to me. Some bullshit moral or ethic being rammed home. Like my little pony does! Many games do this, even KOTOR falls victim to this making 'dark side' actions just stupid evil for the sake of being stupid.

 

[Mauso88]

Stun-locking. Make the game actually difficult or don't make the game, stun-locking is just lazy BS design.

 

[Delsana]

Sacrificing singleplayer for multiplayer.

 

[TheDooD]

The worse thing a game can do?

ughh not work at all should be at the top of the list...

 

[Linkassassin360]

Being patched and then not working....
Im looking at YOU starcraft2!

 

[cWg | Konka]

being to easy is the worse thing a game can do

 

[Arrogancy]

The same thing that anything can do, squander potential. I've played games that are fine, but I can't stand because I'm distracted by how much better it could have been.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I would say confusing gameplay/game elements, forgetful story, unresolved plot, and a horrible ending. The last one is probably the biggest slap to the face that would ruin a whole franchise for me, regardless of how good any previous or following games were or would be.

 

[joshperry94]

Produce an awful sequel...

 

[let's rock]

have the words "call of duty" on the cover

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Well, aside from the bugs, don't work, boring bits personal pet peeves in games are, grammar and spelling mistakes where they shouldn't be, especially in text... WoW, you have billions how the hell are you making spelling mistakes??? Your QA team taking a hiatus to Cancun or something?

(note, this does not include when it supposed to be like that, like with an accent, slang, or clever wordplay. I mean stuff like: Go kil seven spiney mucksuckers and collect seven mucksucker gibblybits. )

 

[dickywebster]

Been boring/taking too long to get going, ive lost interest in a few games cause of this.

Otherwise, respawning enemies that respawn so quickly you barely have to time move one after killing the last lot.

Oh and then theres platforming or dodging sections where you need to be exactly on or die, a lot.

 

[ninetails593]

I just think it's really boring.

Seems like someone watches more than they play...

 

[Treblaine]

Stun-locking. Make the game actually difficult or don't make the game, stun-locking is just lazy BS design.

Sometimes a certain amount of stun-lock is necessary, like with weapons that deal damage at a slow rate like a Sub-machine gun vs a shotgun.

You can pop in and out of cover with a shotgun in sync with the cycling of the action and be in cover most of the time. Also, you can as soon as you have aimed at them deal all the lethal damage in an instant, no time for them to hit back. Often the enemy doesn't know they are under attack till the first shot is fired or they are hit, being killed with the first hit makes powerful single shot weapons like shotguns and sniper rifles way too powerful.

A submachine gun in this kind of game, without stun-lock of some sort, would be far inferior by comparison. The weapons just wouldn't be balanced. The Flak cannon (along with rocket launcher and similar) are dominating weapons in Unreal Tournament because of no stun-lock for the rapid-fire weapons. COD devs have usually overcompensated making the shotguns very weak, and when they don't... well you get the M1887...

The thing is weapons have to be fun to use, they have to SEEM powerful and simply being statistically powerful isn't enough, the effect that they have on the enemy matters. A shotgun sends the enemy flying back, the rocket or grenade will fling them through the air if not gibbed, flame weapons ignite them, charring them and writing. This can be subtle but it matters. But it is HARD to code in, I'll tell you that... but it is necessary.

The way to make the SMG (or an assault rifle, or any weapon that fires many relatively weak shots quickly) fun and balanced is some kind of stun-lock. That's how you'd balance out auto-weapons and shotguns, especially when they have the same damage-per-second overall. I'm not saying a complete stun, but at least inhibit their ability to fire or aim to they can't do much to hit you back. After all, it's not unreasonable to say that getting a supersonic 9mm bullet though the thorax would leave you somewhat stunned, even if just for a fraction of a second.

However, you can take this too far.

In Infamous the enemies have a HUGE stun response to getting hit, they bend double and stagger around the problem being with the crappy thumbstick controls and no aim-assist is this makes them WAY harder to hit with successive shots. Because every hit you can guarantee they will move in a random direction. In the end it was always quicker to aim for one-hit-kill headshots.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Throw in an element that clashes so badly with the rest of the game, that it ruins the whole thing.

I'm talking about stuff like the runey system from Rune Factory frontier. It was a perfect game...and then they made us babysit these stupid elementals and sort them out with a crappy ranged vaccum, or risk our farms being made useless. >: (

Yeah, you think the battery mechanic of Deux Ex 3 was bad? PAH! I made it through mostly stealthy, and I had 3 freakin stacks of candy by the end. It's annoying, yes. But not game breaking. You just need to made do with your one battery in normal situations, rationing it carefully, and then chow down on candy only when you really need to use a lot of power in one shot (like to invisi-run across an entire warehouse filled with tons of troops and a robot).

The runeys? THOSE were !@#$ing game breaking! *raaaaaaage!!!*