Game Design that you Can't Stand.

[SmashFinale]

I can live with friendly fire if it affects both the players and the enemy A.I.

[Elija2]

You gotta take the good with the bad yo.

Yes, but the point is I don't want to.

[Hakudamashi]

Y'know what else bothers me? When I lose even when I win.

You engage in a boss fight or whatever difficult section, and you get past it despite all odds, worse when you breeze through, but the events that followed after act like you failed horribly.

Different from "supposed to lose" fights, cause in those, if you do fail it, the story will still progress.

What I' talking about are those that do have a failure state when you fuck up, so you don't fuck up, but the events after act like you fucked up.

Senran Kagura Shinovi Versus is full of this and it's driving me nuts.

[SmashFinale]

Something that has been pissing me off since 2011. Lazy matchmaking. It used to be that every online game had a ranking or non-ranking options. And they would have search parameters so you can choose whether or not you could play with someone that is both around your skill level and in your own country. Nowadays it's just dump you into a match and hope the game isn't already more than finished or laggy as holy hell. i swear the last non-fighting game i played that did this was Halo 3.

[Hakudamashi]

Fighting games for the most part still do that.

But I don't really play other online games unfortunately.

[Raidein]

I'll list a few.


Required internet services:

These are pretty rare, but when a game basically requires you to have an internet connection it really gets annoying. To some, they won't care because they have internet. But when you're playing on a console like an Xbox or a PS4, you have to BUY the ability to use the internet. And everybody says NINTENDO are sellouts.
For an example, take a look at some of the Call of Duty games. If you didn't want to play a set story, you'd have to connect online to play against opponents. At least it was like that on the one I played.



High amounts story / Low amounts of freedom:

Why is this so common? I feel like I'm the only one on this but when a game interrupts me with a cutscene or walls of text I just want to have a cheat code that lets me skip all this crap. Say, Final Fantasy 1 would let you pick your names, classes, always have a set party, and you have a sense of freedom even though honestly you're sticking to one path. The game doesn't demand you to, you pretty much just do it by yourself! And in more recent FF games, that changes. A lot.
Dragon Warrior 1 and 2, too. 1 would tell you to collect crap in a chest and that's all you were demanded to do at the start, asides from saving the princess (WHICH IS COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. YUP. MORE GAMES NEED THIS.) and saving the world (Not really optional if you want to beat the game) and you even needed to go in the chests because the key to a door, a weapon and money were in them. By the second game you were limited a little more, not being able to set the names of your teammates and being told where to go at first. But the game still had a lot of free roaming. So much so that if you didn't get a map you'd certainly be lost when you get the boat.
Oh, and you know what made me sh*t myself at first? When I found the island from the first game inside of the second game! It felt so puny compared to the land I'd been traversing so far. And the part that made me empty my bowels was when I went inside the final castle of the first game, got the most powerful weapon in the first game in nearly the same spot I'd gotten it before and then FIND THE FINAL BOSS JUST SAT THERE ON HIS THRONE. THE GAME DID NOT FORCE ME TO COME HERE WITH BARRIERS AND DIALOGUE AND OTHER CRAP. I came here of my own free will. I wasn't told to come here, but I did anyway. The game let me do what I want!
Sadly though, you don't battle him. He just tells you some stuff about the final boss in this game and you don't fight him. At first I didn't know this so I just ran like a pussy but on my second playthrough I talked to him and was pretty dissapointed. Still, that was cool.

oh hey, wall of text.

================================
and now, the thing I hate MOST OF ALL:
================================

In-game purchases / Add-on content / DLC:

Look at me here, playing this new game I bought for £40. I had to save up some money despite being nearly 20, because I hardly have any spare money to play games. So I buy the game, thinking that that was all the money I had to spend and now I could get all the content cause I've already payed enough. So I'm just having this grand old time when I hear something. You can get all this new stuff by paying extra money that you may or may not have, instead of releasing it as an update like Nintendo would do!
Oh, and that doesn't mean Nintendo don't use DLC either. Although, they did hold back a bit. Their stuff isn't planned from Day 1, and is inspired by the people who played Smash Bros. Of course, we all wanted Mewtwo and Lucas and Nintendo could get some money from us by making it DLC instead of putting it in an update!
...okay, this I kind of understand. I mean, you can fix bugs, balance characters and add some more things that you've been planning since Day 1 but had problems with implementing in time with updates, but who has ever heard of more recent games adding whole new features and playing elements thought up after the release as an UPDATE? Yeah? Nobody. That's what I thought. I still wish they could just give it to us for free, damnit. I don't have any more money to give you after buying your game.

You know what's most terrible? DAY 1 DLC. The sin of gaming. The people who do this require to burn for all eternity. What it means that instead of putting more content in the game from the start they decided to take it away from the game and make you buy it, sucking MORE money out of you. Think of a crate you bought. The crate was locked and it came with the key to open it. You open it and there pops out your game. But inside is a tiny crate that requires you buy ANOTHER key to open it, requiring more money so you can get everything inside of your crate. Of course you could just smash the crate open, like piracy, but that would be illegal and creators will do everything in their power to stop you from pirating their games and DLC.





...ok, I'm done. I wanted to write more, but I'm pretty sure nobody reads this stuff anyway.

[Elija2]

When it comes to games that require online, it all depends on the game. Games like CoD are all about their multiplayer so of course the meat of the game is online. At least those games still offer a single-player campaign and split-screen, both of which can be played offline.

Same thing with DLC. It all depends on what the DLC actually adds. The cost should correlate with the amount of content it provides. I've got no problem paying $5-10 for DLC that adds a decent amount of content to the game, and I also don't have a problem with games selling costumes and stuff for $1. I'm not gonna lose sleep over some cheap DLC, but I do appreciate when developers add new content to their games for free. I think stuff like microtransactions are much worse because they actually affect the gameplay (games with microtransactions are more likely to be designed so as to push you towards paying for microtransactions, usually by making the game more difficult or more tedious, which compromises the overall quality of the game).

...ok, I'm done. I wanted to write more, but I'm pretty sure nobody reads this stuff anyway.

I read this stuff.

[Raidein]

When it comes to games that require online, it all depends on the game. Games like CoD are all about their multiplayer so of course the meat of the game is online. At least those games still offer a single-player campaign and split-screen, both of which can be played offline.

Same thing with DLC. It all depends on what the DLC actually adds. The cost should correlate with the amount of content it provides. I've got no problem paying $5-10 for DLC that adds a decent amount of content to the game, and I also don't have a problem with games selling costumes and stuff for $1. I'm not gonna lose sleep over some cheap DLC, but I do appreciate when developers add new content to their games for free. I think stuff like microtransactions are much worse because they actually affect the gameplay (games with microtransactions are more likely to be designed so as to push you towards paying for microtransactions, usually by making the game more difficult or more tedious, which compromises the overall quality of the game).

I read this stuff.

One thing I forgot to mention that sometimes the DLC isn't cheap at all, and sometimes takes actual content from the game away from it. Also, another thing I forgot to mention there is a game with DLC that literally adds cheats in. You know, like most games with cheats have it built in, but this one decided to make you pay to have cheats? yeah no everybody will just use a cheating device instead.

[Elija2]

One thing I forgot to mention that sometimes the DLC isn't cheap at all, and sometimes takes actual content from the game away from it. Also, another thing I forgot to mention there is a game with DLC that literally adds cheats in. You know, like most games with cheats have it built in, but this one decided to make you pay to have cheats? yeah no everybody will just use a cheating device instead.

Yeah, I think Destiny is a recent egregious example. $20 for slightly modified versions of content that was already in the game.

And I think it's Saints Row that sells cheats as DLC. What a stupid idea.

[Hakudamashi]

Oh man, the days of unskippable cutscenes
Good things those days are behind us right?
Right?

[Hakudamashi]

Long stretches of gameplay with no checkpoint in sight. You die and you have to replay 30mins to an hour of what you've already done.

Just gonna sum it all under "Unforgiving checkpoints"

[Elija2]

Weight limits. I wanna be able to carry a million sets of heavy armour at once, goddamnit!

When a level has multiple paths and you want to explore every nook and cranny but you don't know which path will advance the game and prevent you from going back to explore the rest of the level. Excuse me for wanting to be thorough!

Games that let you sell/throw away items that you can't get ever again. At least warn me if I'm about to get rid of a unique item.

Games with like a million collectables but most of them are trivially easy or just not fun to collect. Fuck collectathons.

Games that are weirdly strict with when you can save. What's with only being able to save after beating a castle in the NSMB games? Would it really break the game if I was able to save whenever I want?

Games with cold openings as soon as you launch the game for the first time. I have a habit of checking the options menu as soon as I start a game, and it bothers me when I'm not allowed to do that until I watch the opening cutscene or beat the opening level. I'm especially picky about turning subtitles on before i start a game because I don't like missing hard-to-hear dialog, but when a game has a cold opening I miss the entire opening cutscene. I know this sounds like nitpicking, but it's important to me, damnit! Oh, and deaf people too, I assume.

[Hakudamashi]

Didn't know they were called cold openings.

[Elija2]

When the game forces your character to walk slowly through a short section so he can talk to his buddy or something. Just make it a cutscene so I can at least put my controller down!

[Hakudamashi]

Just, in engine cutscenes in general
They allow you to walk around, but you're locked in the room or tunnel till everyone's done talking.
Is a real pace breaker.