Jump to content
IGNORED

Your favourite game design howlers


Eighthours
 Share

Recommended Posts

In this particular case, in this game, I think it is.

First person perspective is great when you're doing things at range or at speed because you can judge distance very easily. But when you can't do that reliably, the game becomes blind luck and hope-for-the-best actions rather than any sense of skill. ME's problem is that its close range and slow, and so the game experience is rather like being someone running over the rooftops with only one functioning eye.

Not all perspectives work for all games. A counter-example would be a game where the main gameplay was about sniper-rifling enemies over half mile distances, and yet the game insisted on a 3rd person perspective.

I don't like first person myself for any games but I don't think stereoscopic vision is especially important (even in real life) for the scales we're talking about here. It helps you thread a needle but you can tell the distance of a house or door with one eye.

The narrow viewport is more of a problem in FPS games. Especially with consoles when you're sitting well away from the screen. It's like driving a bus from the back seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Here's one. Patronising tutorial goals.

In Sonic Chronicles:the Dark Brotherhood one of your first quests is to locate and deliver a red stapler. Maybe it was an ironic homage to Office Space but it felt so out of place.

Doing it right? The parody in the remake of the Bard's Tale where you have to kill a rat in the cellar. After going down there and killing it with one shot (and having the narrator half heartedly congratulate you on your great victory) the 'real' rat appears, a two story tall monstrosity that sets you on fire. On fleeing up to the pub (and getting dowsed in beer) you find out that the locals just love sending idiots down to the cellar to face the rat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm driving at is that the older system made choices complex because you basically have to think of the consequences, whereas the newer system basically made all the choices immediate because the unified ammo removed the need to worry about consequence. The only consequence was, essentially, that you might run out of ammo entirely. And I think that's bad.

...

In a sense, what I'm saying is that Invisible Wars' mistake is that it takes Chess and turns it into Draughts by virtue of the unified ammo mechanic (sort of - you still have more weapons, but the need to choose between them is cosmetic rather than strategic). You have less immediate choice in the first game, but you have less in the way of meaningful consequence in the second one, and (in my opinion, less I get accused of factoiding again) that makes the second game worse.

The issue for me is that you don't get to see what significance your choices will have before you make them, short of either quicksaving at every doorway or just playing it to death so you know every level inside out (both of which I'm guilty of for Deus Ex). Removing the skills, making the biomods replaceable, unifying the ammo, all play a part in removing the burden of uncertainty. Choices you don't fully understand make for arbitrary and meaningless consequences as far as I'm concerned (Oh no! It's a tank bot/security grid/gas barrel/room full of guards! I wish I'd picked up that ____!), and to remove the need to worry about 'unknown unknowns' in this way is to streamline the game while keeping its core intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Sonic Chronicles:the Dark Brotherhood one of your first quests is to locate and deliver a red stapler. Maybe it was an ironic homage to Office Space but it felt so out of place.

Complaining about bad game design in a Sonic title made since 1995 is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like first person myself for any games but I don't think stereoscopic vision is especially important (even in real life) for the scales we're talking about here. It helps you thread a needle but you can tell the distance of a house or door with one eye.

The narrow viewport is more of a problem in FPS games. Especially with consoles when you're sitting well away from the screen. It's like driving a bus from the back seat.

We actually use parallax and scale-related cues to judge distances and 3D space more in real life than stereoscopic vision. There was a papewr out last year that went into a lot of detail about it. That's why 3D TVs aren't likely to take off any time soon- except for close-up stuff we don;t need stereo vision, so they overcompensate to make everything look like it's jumping in and out of the screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic games are the very definition of design flaws. Right from the beginning they make little sense.

Aye, even the Green Hill Zone has sections that cause you to run at full speed into spikes or enemies. It was always full of awful trial and error sections, but it was whizzy and colourful enough that you didn't mind all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue for me is that you don't get to see what significance your choices will have before you make them, short of either quicksaving at every doorway or just playing it to death so you know every level inside out (both of which I'm guilty of for Deus Ex). Removing the skills, making the biomods replaceable, unifying the ammo, all play a part in removing the burden of uncertainty. Choices you don't fully understand make for arbitrary and meaningless consequences as far as I'm concerned (Oh no! It's a tank bot/security grid/gas barrel/room full of guards! I wish I'd picked up that ____!), and to remove the need to worry about 'unknown unknowns' in this way is to streamline the game while keeping its core intact.

I agree, somewhat, with this.

I can see that both things - giving choices with consequence, or fewer consequences, resulting in more choice, can be preferable. It's going to depend on the game in question.

I think the difference though is that the choice with fewer consequences can be a crutch for poor level design, whereas the first requires really tightly designed levels to make sure there aren't loads of times where your playthrough is ruined by impassable obstacles that would have been easy to get through - if you hadn't just used that last rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Achievement points for RANKED Matches, types and shananigans.

Just by having achievments for Ranked Wins or Ranked related play has turned many 360 games into an absolute shit fest. Gears and HD Remix to name two.

This is because the entire mind set of someone playing just turns not to enjoy the game and play it normally, but they will instead continually chase after a bullshit acheivment. For example in SF you have the 10 and 100 Ranked Wins achievment. The easy solution is to pick Akuma and spam fireballs all day long in the hope you get enough easy wins, because he really is an over powered FUCK. As a result of this, there hasn't been a single day since I've bought that game, that I have not had to encounter streams of people picking this bastard. Not worth the effort to fight at times.

In Gears, all of those weapon related targets such as "1000 Head shots", "1000 Sniper Kills", "1000 Grenade Tags" are also game ruining. It just turned a lot of people's focus on trying to find the Sniper, or find grenades and ONLY try and play the game to get the kill in the way described on the achievment. Not so good when you fancy jumping into a random game and all your team is dead because they don't care about winning or team work, they just want to chip away at achievment and get those fucking points.

It's shit! I can't be the only one who thinks that this has plagued certain 360 games. If these type of achievments are in the game, they should not be locked to just Ranked and should be unlockable through normal play with friends.

Football games: Goal scoring

The one thing I hate about football games more then anything is the constant stress of trying to stop your opponent trying to run down gauranteed routes, tracks and angles to get a goal. Had to suffer this crap for many years against mates who play nothing else but footy games who did the same old shit yet whoop and holler like they've scored the most unique goal ever.

From Nintendo World Cup, Kick Off, Sensi, Dino Dini's Soccer, Man UTD in Europe (lol), Super Soccer, Striker, Fifa, International Super Star Soccer, International Super Star Soccer Duluxe, Goal Storm, Super Side Kicks, Addidas Power Sports Soccer, Fifa 64 (FUCKING HELL!) Fifa RTTWC 98, ISS 64, 98, 2000 and all of the fucking Pro Evos throughout the years...which I still don't think are as good as the arcade feel of the N64 football games, but thats just me.

Have a defender move out of position, or be slightly too late on a tackle and up they run at a specific angle towards the goal and bang, in it goes. Nothing you can do.

I must state that I did enjoy playing the games, but over the years the same old tactics just stopped becoming fun trying to do, or trying to stop.

Not played Fifa 09 so I can't comment.

Football and Sport game unskippable replays

Also, I fucking put a curse on the devs who don't allow you to skip past goal replays against someone who keeps rewinding, forwarding and spinning the camera around the ball inch by inch and then full tilt as if he's recreating a scene from Kung Fu Soccer or the Matrix. "Check out the bullet time!"...Fuck off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Achievement points for RANKED Matches, types and shananigans.

Just by having achievments for Ranked Wins or Ranked related play has turned many 360 games into an absolute shit fest. Gears and HD Remix to name two.

This is because the entire mind set of someone playing just turns not to enjoy the game and play it normally, but they will instead continually chase after a bullshit acheivment. For example in SF you have the 10 and 100 Ranked Wins achievment. The easy solution is to pick Akuma and spam fireballs all day long in the hope you get enough easy wins, because he really is an over powered FUCK. As a result of this, there hasn't been a single day since I've bought that game, that I have not had to encounter streams of people picking this bastard. Not worth the effort to fight at times.

In Gears, all of those weapon related targets such as "1000 Head shots", "1000 Sniper Kills", "1000 Grenade Tags" are also game ruining. It just turned a lot of people's focus on trying to find the Sniper, or find grenades and ONLY try and play the game to get the kill in the way described on the achievment. Not so good when you fancy jumping into a random game and all your team is dead because they don't care about winning or team work, they just want to chip away at achievment and get those fucking points.

It's shit! I can't be the only one who thinks that this has plagued certain 360 games. If these type of achievments are in the game, they should not be locked to just Ranked and should be unlockable through normal play with friends.

I'm a little divided over this too, specifically, achievements that will have an adverse effect on multiplayer gameplay, and achievements that involve "grinding"; i.e. that are unattainable without a pretty large investment of time (the flags in Assassin's Creed are my best example; there are just too many to collect to get those cheevs IMO).

I don't mind the Street Fighter one so much, as I've not ran into too many quitters overall. I mean it does happen, and my recent rant about it is probably still fresh in the memory of anyone who reads the SFIIHD topic, but I suppose now I've got the achievement, I just tend to take it as a compliment (because I don't play cheesily, so it just means I was better). Even so, if you're trying to get the 100 with a positive record of wins, then it could certainly be infuriating.

It's difficult to call, I think. I actually really enjoyed getting to that achievement overall; I thought it was well-pitched. 100 wins in ranked was enough so that people who are crap will probably never get there, but it's not so difficult that intermediate players such as myself won't manage it. Had it been 500 wins then I'd have been complaining similarly to Assassin's Creed's flags.

The other problem, though, is the comparative difficulty of ranked play - or more importantly, its unpredictability. For example, getting the achievements on Dead or Alive 4 is now practically impossible. The only people left playing it are those who are unbelievably good, who continue to play it because they've practiced to become so. That's great for them, but it means that getting the SS rank achievement is virtually impossible unless you have a mate who's willing to take a beating so you can get there, then have you switch over - and then there's not much point in it. What I'm saying is it's a lot more difficult now than it would have been when the game was newly released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unified ammo was great in that game, and it's ridiculous that more FPSes haven't taken that route.

Weighing up traditional ammunition (con - limits usage of a single weapon) with unified (con - limits usage of ALL weapons), I would run with the former. In theory, unified ammunition provides players with a choice of tactics for the battle at hand. In practice, I found myself ending up using the lower powered rifles because their low ammo drain left me least likely to find myself utterly impotent. It severely hinders the concept of the backup ranged weapon, an inferior gun you know you can always rely on being there for you if the shit hits the fan.

I'm not sure freedom of choice and ammunition mix at all. You can obtain the intended results by having infinite ammo and restricting the use of the higher powered guns in other ways (say, overheating) to avoid spamming, and you won't have situations where being unable to fire your rocket launcher also means you've got about 15 pistol rounds left.

Weapon choice is a noble ambition, unified ammo is an ignoble solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weighing up traditional ammunition (con - limits usage of a single weapon) with unified (con - limits usage of ALL weapons), I would run with the former. In theory, unified ammunition provides players with a choice of tactics for the battle at hand. In practice, I found myself ending up using the lower powered rifles because their low ammo drain left me least likely to find myself utterly impotent. It severely hinders the concept of the backup ranged weapon, an inferior gun you know you can always rely on being there for you if the shit hits the fan.

I'm not sure freedom of choice and ammunition mix at all. You can obtain the intended results by having infinite ammo and restricting the use of the higher powered guns in other ways (say, overheating) to avoid spamming, and you won't have situations where being unable to fire your rocket launcher also means you've got about 15 pistol rounds left.

Weapon choice is a noble ambition, unified ammo is an ignoble solution.

Yeah, I guess the problem is that FPS games still insist on giving you limited ammo for pistols, semi-autos etc. If the unified ammo only applied to rockets, flamethrowers, plasma cannons and other FPS 'special weapon' tropes then it would be a lot easier for people to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i always preferred racing games in proper 16:9 with a vertical split, so i could see more of the track ahead.

shooters and the like, deffo horizontal.

On widescreen, I prefer a vertical split - I'd prefer that for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.