What game mechanics do you love and hate?
I love hearing about unique takes on game mechanics. Someone recently convinced me that limited inventories are kind of abused currently and that unlimited inventory systems would give more player choices.
I love hearing about unique takes on game mechanics. Someone recently convinced me that limited inventories are kind of abused currently and that unlimited inventory systems would give more player choices.
FUCK. THE. ALWAYS. ONLINE. PARADIGM.
Not truly a game mechanic but I love the passion against GAAS.
Does this include cloud streamed games? I for one am still waiting for a streaming exclusive game in the vein of Elden Ring or BotW. Bonus if it's an MMO. Imagine how much more mysterious a world could be if no one is able to datamine the binary. The only way to discover things would be players actually discovering them.
Eh. I would say that they are still mysterious and interesting if you don't look at the information on a website saying what's in the game or not. So yeah, I don't really like what cloud gaming is doing. If you want to keep the mystery of a universe, have some self-control.
I'm not saying "for each player, they are able to experience a sense of wonder in a game when played in isolation", that's old hat. I'm saying "for all players, everyone experiences a shared sense of wonder and discovery in an artificial world they live in together".
I've never played Elden Ring, yet I couldn't help but see the community make new discoveries together. The first couple of days every post was about Margit, then a few people found the fake wall that hides an entire zone, and a month later someone has reverse engineered the levels and found a wall that takes over 1000 hits to get rid of.
When the binary is entirely hidden from the users, and the only thing the users have have access to is a window peering into the world as you want them to see it, you get to create an entire set of physical laws that is hidden from the players. Players have to work together to conduct experiments, peer review each other, compete with each other, and become experts in very narrow fields of research within your simulation. Imagine spending months as a community raising in-game funding and developing the technology to sail/fly/launch to a New World for the first time, and when you finally arrive you know you are the first set of players to ever see it, specifically as a result of your efforts.
What you're describing is a neat little one-off escape room experience. What I'm describing is an actual world. We currently cannot do this.
While this is a cool concept, I don’t think there is a single organization with the money needed to pull it off that wouldn’t also ruin the concept with monetization features. Maybe some kind of community made game could accomplish it, similar to what the Thrive devs are doing, but the amount of consistent resources needed would be a lot.
Yeah, that's why I think we're in an MMO slump right now. The only companies who can afford the scale "need" it to be a cash cow. So they need really predictable methods of generating income, which means not doing anything too interesting. I'm hoping one day we'll get past that. I think we have the technology right now for indie devs to roll out a semi-affordable MMO of decent quality, but I also don't want the market to be flooded with garbage MMOs. We already have too many of those.
Escort quests! Especially when the person you're escorting moves incredibly slow (except when running toward obvious danger).
I agree that is clearly broken and overused in many games but if we were able to actually control the walking speed on PC with a keyboard similar to what is possible with a controller, it would probably be more bearable tbh.
I hate not being able to pause a game, particularly a single player game. I think Elite Dangerous solidified my hatred of this, by not telling you the game is still running when you're on the "pause" menu.
"B-B-BU-BUT it's a simulation and you can't pause real life so it makes it more real"
It's a game, even if it's a simulation game. It's a toy for grown-ups. A very nice and fun and relaxing toy, but a toy nonetheless. It's not more important than a phone call, call at the door, crying child, hungry cat, partner who needs a hand with something etc.
This probably extends to being able to save anywhere and rejoin later, but I think that one is covered pretty well by everyone else :)
"your choices matter"
Love the concept, but most of the time, they do not matter.
Cough cough Mass Effect cough cough Cyberpunk 2077 cough cough
I personally find the most important part of those choices isn't the actual effect, but whether the game managed to immerse me enough so that I care.
For example, in Life is Strange, there's a string of choices you can make that will get someone killed (or save them). The game invests enough time in the character before hand so when you come to the crossroads, the decisions FEEL very important. Do those choices have any big effects on the game? Not really. The character isn't part of the main story line anymore after that, you only get some people referencing the difference. But if FELT important.
Think about the polar opposite: Choices that change the entire game, but you aren't invested in. Would those be interesting choices, or would that just be 2 games in the form of one, and the choice is just a kind of "game select screen".
I hate when games try to make you feel like you have player agency when it's really just a cutscene and you're pressing a button. Whether it's a QTE or "Press F to Pay Respects." Recently RDR2 was a huge offender of this, featuring probably half a dozen cutscenes where all you do is press W or up on the controller to walk forward or whatever you're doing. Like there's one where it's probably 5 minutes of walking forward interspersed with dialogue. I understand why the developers made you walk that far. It adds to the tension and it adds to the feeling of despair that the character is currently going through. But I think it would've been fine if it was just a regular cutscene instead of "Press W to walk" and if you let go you stop walking, meaning you can't even take a break.
edit: also I dislike stealth games with unrealistic "alert" systems. In a good example like Metal gear solid v, you get a solid 5 to 10 seconds if a guard is outside hearing / sight range of other guards, so even if you're spotted you're still fine as long as you take them out quickly and silently. And even if you dont take him out quickly, he'll still only be able to alert people nearby or he needs to take some time to alert on the radio. On the other hand, in cyberpunk 2077 if just one guard saw you for even a fraction of a second, the entire base would be alerted. I guess lore-wise it makes sense, but from a gameplay perspective it was the least fun I had in that game. Trying to stealth my way through an entire place only for the whole thing to come crashing down because somebody saw my shoulder from 15 meters away. It came to a point where I was just going in guns blazing because stealth just wasn't worth it.
Spider-man from 2018 was also like this. The enemy hideouts or whatever were based very heavily around the game's stealth mechanics, but if just 1 guard became alerted, everybody would become alerted and it would start its stupid wave system. The game heavily encouraged you to take out guards silently so it didn't send in wave after wave of them, but it was just so incredibly punishing to be silent in that game.
Ehh I disagree with using RDR2 as an example, but I think QTEs in general are probably my least favorite game mechanic. I actually quite like walking around in RDR2 during the missions. A huge aspect of the game is just immersing yourself in the map/world and listening to the NPCs. I can see it getting old during replays but for me it's a hell of a lot better than watching a cutscene and being prompted to hit a button. I vividly remember fishing with Dutch and Josea for at least a half hour just listening to them chat with Arthur
Agree with you, I remember where the person is talking about, press x to walk on guarma, which did drag on, but they were shipwrecked and he didn't know what was happening yet. Rdr gets exceptions to me because it's so cinematic, to me the game is realistic, but so much that you aren't playing a game, you're watching a movie.
My issue is less that it drags on and more that it's basically barely even gameplay. You're pressing a button for minutes on end, then letting go when they talk, then pressing again when they walk again. It's boring. For a game as cinematic as RDR2 you'd think they wouldn't be afraid to just make it a cutscene. If they wanted gameplay then at least let me walk around a bit.
Right but it's a story, it doesn't all have to be rootin tootin cowboy shooting, the storytelling is a major part of it. It helps the player really feel like theyre expercing Arthur. I get what you're saying, but they definitely purposefully chose these devices from a storytelling perspective.
Yes and I'm saying the made a bad decision, no matter how purposeful it is. I find your reasoning to be really flawed here. Just because they chose to tell the story that way doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
Yeah it makes me feel like a dumbass.
I recently bought marvels midnight suns because it was on sale, i didn't even onow it was a card game. I usually don't really play card games. The game is fine, actually i kinda like it. But the things i don't like are the things when you don't play the card game. You just awkwardly walk around in 3rd person. After every fight it's the same. You walk to a guy, go to bed, skip 3 cutscenes, walk to the forge, walk to the upgrade thing, walk to whoever you have to talk. Probably 1/3 of the game is walking the same path every ingame day.
Make an option to skip all of that. Make it a drop down menu or something.
Hate: disproportionately excessive penalties for falls (usually found in platformers).
If you get shot in the face by an enemy, you lose your shield, lose a life, whatever. In a bad platformer, if you don’t time a difficult jump exactly right, you lose a life, lose everything in your inventory, get sent back to the very beginning of the level, get audited, and have to mow the developers lawn for an entire summer.
Platformers are “guilty until proven innocent” - I won’t play one until I know it won’t destroy my will to live.
That's why Celeste is one of my favorite platformers. If you fail, you respawn at the very "screen" you died.
God damn that's a great game. At the same time, I think they did this knowing that folks would die all the time, so they didn't want each death to be super punishing.
In older games they were called "rooms"
Out of interest, what platformers are you referencing here? I can't think of any that are that punishing.
I stopped playing salt and sanctuary because of the platforming, despite being an ardent lover of souls likes.
I honestly can’t even remember the one that first set me off. It’s been a while. I just remember realizing that gravity was more punishing than any of the enemies, and thinking “oh, to hell with this.”
For platformers, maybe. But for certain genres -- like battle royale -- the risk of losing it all after one mistake is part of the thrill. It all depends on the game.
You would hate Nocta lol
Any sort of not respecting the player's time: grind, making the player do the computer's job (e.g., not having an auto-sort button for the inventory), time sinks, unskippable cutscenes, slow walking etc.
One of the things I hate the most is when people say, "You gotta be X hours in and then it is really great!" If you have to wait for a game to get good then, in my opinion, it is not a very good game. I want to have fun right from the beginning.
I suppose some games could be an acquired taste, but usually the need to invest time before you can have any fun is just bad game design.
E.g. every single MMO
Time sinks in MMOs at least give you something to show off to other players. Doing this stuff in single player is the worst.
Josh Strife Hayes on YouTube brings this up all the time. If all your good content is at the end of the game, you're doing it wrong. How can you expect new players to actually want to play your game if they have to play most of the way through to have fun?
Oh unskippable cutscenes really are my pet peeve!
And when you die the respawn point is just before the cutscene.
There's a special level of hell for people that do that!
Oh, didn't notice that the title says love or hate.
So I hate time sinks, but I love roguelikes/roguelites that have well done metaprogression and also allow you to have fun with ridiculous overpowered builds.
Fishing minigames. I hate them with every single fiber of my body specially when they are mandatory for progress or to get 100% completition
They are not relaxing, they are painfully boring
I love hard games, but only when the challenge is fair, if the game consist solely on trial and error, that's bad
I genuinely enjoy the "git gud" journey, I find it very rewarding
I'm absolutely baffled as to why more than one game I've ever played had fishing in it.
I love the X series (despite the unfortunate name), but the literal real-time days you spend waiting for money to appear in your account are still more engaging than any fishing minigame ever.
I agree with fishing mini games, it's almost never anything like actual fishing, but some sort of weird experience that requires a combination of precise timing, button mashing or both.
That being said I think it's insane to me that Nintendo crammed a fishing mini game in basically every Zelda game except for BotW and TotK, the two games where it would actually make sense. I just wanna chill and throw out a line. It's every other zelda game where I just did the minimum amount required to get a bottle or whatever I needed.
Hahaha. If I didn't know better I would think you just got done doing that fishing competition in Trails In The Sky 3rd.
I don't mind the fishing mini game in Breath of Fire 3. You can see all the fish and it's just a matter of skill not patience. That said, it's optional (the only fish you need, I believe you can buy) and trying to 100% it is a chore I'd rather not do again.
I love fast travel, warp gates, teleporting and anything that makes it easier and faster for me to get from Point A to Point B.
"Scenery is pretty." Don't care.
"Look at the extra content." I'll look if I want to. Don't force it.
While I enjoy casual and relaxed games, taking forever to walk to where I want to go is neither casual nor relaxed. I wanna be where I wanna be in game and don't pad on the gameplay hours with slow transport options.
In a similar vein, any game that forces your camera slightly upwards while you're going somewhere drives me up a wall. Like, I'm sure the devs want to show off the pretty world they made, but I want to avoid tripping over the rock right in front of me!
puzzles mechanics in games that are not about them.
Or puzzles that are completely esoteric or unintuitive. Just replayed some of the Myst games, and it's like "oh ok I was stuck on this for 30min because the lever was on the other side of the map and there was literally no indication that it was related". That's just artificially inflating your game's difficulty, and it's lazy puzzle making. Boooo
The Myst series of games had an unfortunate amount of unintuitive puzzles. Most games in that era that included puzzles did.
I've been whining to everyone in earshot about all the puzzles in remnant 2 hahaha
I'm looking at you, DiMA from Fallout 4 Far Harbor
Time-limited consumables as buffs can be a huge annoyance. In a ton of games I just end up stacking them, waiting for an opportunity where I need them, but usually when I need them, I don't have the time to stop and use them. I keep ending those kind of games with an inventory full of potions.
I really like minor stat boosting items instead. So rather than giving me an inventory full of potions, give me three or four slots for items that can have a huge range of different bonuses and penalties, and they are pretty minor, but they're permanent. That way I get to craft a build instead of just being annoyed
I hate quick time events.
Fahrenheit flashbacks... :(
What I nightmare of a game that was
Hey! The first half was actually really good. The second half didn't happen.
Seriously, I remember replaying Fahrenheit like 2 or 3 times and always stopping at the halfway mark. That very first level in the diner promised soooo much, and the game never delivered.
I agree. The game starts off really good. Too bad they made it like this.
I will take your example and just pretend the second part didn't happen.
The early God of War games were so unbelievably brutal for these. On harder difficulties, I would often master a boss only to have to retry it again a few more times because the quick time events to actually finish them off would be kicking my ass.
Ah a cutscene. Let me put my controller down, grab my drink an-
"PUSH 'A', MOTHERFUCKER! DO IT NOW! DO IT! Aww, you fucked it up. Way to go idiot! Why did you think you could relax for even a moment?"
Limited re-specing. Playing FFXVI right now and the free, on the fly, just open the menu and experiment respec is a tremendeous breath of fresh air.
Totally agree, I don't want to have to do research before or during playing and have to consult a build guide for every level up, just so I don't mess up my character.
Just let me fuck around, find out and do it better all over again in my own time.
I am a collector, and inventory management is always the thing that makes or breaks an RPG for me. Unlimited inventory is just completely unrealistic, but on the other hand, making an RPG inventory completely realistic is just no fun. Of course I want to be able to lug all that sweet loot home, including battle axes, broadswords, several full armor sets, myriad other weapons, potions, etc. Having an encumbrance such as Skyrim has makes total sense to me. I love the idea of being able to sort and filter my inventory, and store items in whatever container I own. I also like to be able to compare the stats of new items with ones I own so I know if something is a trade up.
I hate storage block inventories, where items physically take up one, or a few "squares". I don't want to play a tile puzzle with my items.
Need to make sure you hoard those hundreds of potions and wheels of cheese "just in case" 🧀🧀🧀
RDR2 has one of, if not my favorite, inventory systems. Your own 'backpack' that had a weight limit and could only carry smaller things. Big things you'd have to lug onto the back of your horse or find a cart. All of your equipped weapons are displayed on your person. If you want to swap weapons you have to run back to your horse and exchange weapons at your saddle bags
I often find mechanics that only exist to waste time incredibly annoying. In the case of loot, a limited inventory is kind of that. You could absolutely just portal/teleport to town, sell your stuff, and then get back to playing. There's no challenge involved, EXCEPT that it wastes your real-world time.
I liked the pets in Torchlight for this reason. You could send them off to sell loot, while you kept playing the part of the game that's actually fun.
One exception is something like Resident Evil, where the choice is relevant to the gameplay directly. But even then, I would've preferred limits on individual elements (Only X weapons, only X healing items, etc.) and having extras automatically stored.
This is my line in the sand too. I couldn’t play Witcher 3 more than the first hours because of the inventory management.
I got a zero weight mod so I wouldn't need to bother with inventory management.
Open world is severely overrated
I agree a handcrafted well put together tube level is superior to an empty generic generated world
Especially when they are just a series of on-rails missions with "ride a horse through this forest for five minutes" breaks in between.
especially when so many games like to cram anything and everything into the open world. Yahtzee Croshaw of zero punctuation called it "jiminy cockthroat." You have stealth, a crafting system, a skills system, collectibles, etc. Like, not every open world game needs stealth. Just because Far Cry 3 did it back in 2012 doesn't necessitate your character to be hiding in bushes while guards walk past every other mission
Yes, I feel like at least 75% of games that are Open Word would be better if they weren't.
Anything that involves the mechanic "defeat all the enemies in this room in order to unlock the next room" is a huge turn off for me.
Slow grounded movement in open world games is so dumb. Why the fuck do you think I want to spend 5minutes walking across a plain or on a path I can't that forces me to move slowly. I do appreciate how some games like this actively just take control for you so you can do a chore (Final Fantasy XIV autodrive, RDR2 lets you automatically move on a path while riding a horse) butIf your open world is that boring, can you just add a mode that brings me to my destination?
I'd much rather a more densely populated world on a smaller scale (Yakuza) some fun extreme forms of movement (Gravity Rush, Tears of the Kingdom). Heck even just have a faster option for mobility on basic terrain is better (Elden Ring). If there was a big desert and you gave me a dune buggy that goes 100mph, that feels way better then having to walk/trod around a hilly or mountainous landscape dotted with areas you have to move around or carefully move through.
Obviously if you lean into that mechanic as being intentionally frustrating, feel free.
Death Stranding is a game completely about grounded movement, but it makes it enjoyable. Usually traveling in games is mostly about turning your brain off and moving forward. DS you need to pay attention to your environment and character and plan a path forward. It's actually engaging. I don't expect other games to do as well as a game where that's 99% of what they were trying, but I'd hope they learn from it at least. I haven't seen much, if any, of that yet though.
Death Stranding 100% gets this right, although it's a bit weird in the end-game when your optimal choice is typically some combination of vehicles and ziplines.
Paying attention to the elevation, pathing around rocks and trying to stay level is a lot more fun than it sounds. Some of the best moments in that game it just lets some chill music play while you carefully walk from A-B and it's a ton of fun the whole time.
Then you finally reach your destination and the story feels almost entirely detached from the walking experience and characters with the dumbest names imaginable explain some made up bullshit to you for 45 minutes.
If you didn't guess that last paragraph was specifically about Death Stranding. No reason to fault that game for what it is
In a similar vein for me, I really dislike cutscenes in a lot of first person games where you still have control of your character, but the only thing you can do is sloooowly move forward or move your camera slightly to the side. Just make it an actual cinematic so I can just sit back and watch instead of pretending it's gameplay.
This is one big reason why I liked Fenyx way better than Breath of the Wild. The Fenyx world is far smaller, but also more dense with actually interesting things to do. You have a horse in both, but the distances in BotW are still just pointlessly big, esp. when 90% of the things you can find are just the same two things: shrines and koroks.
In some sense that's correct. You'd have more options, but you wouldn't take them. Having a limited inventory forces you to make choices. Yes, you can use that scroll/potion/whatever, because you're gonna run out of room, so feel free. On the other hand, I think that many devs don't consider inventory management enough! I think that it's often an afterthought and could use more dev attention.
Hate: instakills. Diablo 4 and Risk of Rain 2 are my current games that have this. ROR2 is not as bad, you can prevent this by getting enough defensive items. D4 is worse about this. You can be chewing thru trash mobs just fine but get to a boss and immediately die. There's no ramp up to this.
Inventory management is one aspect of Diablo 1 that I liked a lot. If you played MP, you could either transfer your gear to mules.. But if you wanted to play "as the game is intended", you had very limited space to carry between games and had to choose which items you want to carry with you to the next game. I did a playthrough through the 3 difficulties with Warrior a few years ago and I loved having to make these choices.
If you play RoR2 on PC, you owe it to yourself to install some Quality of Life mods, like one that fixes or improves the game's built in one shot protection. Also, auto sprint.
I do. Thanks! I didn't even realize there were mods.
There are certainly many games that shouldn't have limited inventories that have them, but I also think there are many games for which a limited inventory enhance the game. I do enjoy games that make me make decisions about what I want to take with me and budget my inventory space when it makes sense.
On the topic of instakills, I always mod them out of Fallout 4 and Skyrim, because it's annoying as hell that I can be instakilled from full HP, when it would otherwise take several hits to even endanger me.
I hate when games are open world just cause. I only ever enjoy an open world when there's an insane amount of lore like in Skyrim or Fallout, but in most games I prefer a linear gameplay or semi-open (Mass effect, Dragon Age)
At some point something happened and literally every game has to be open world now 😭
A Plague Tale is an incredible example of what can be done with a linear design. Both Innocence and Requiem were amazing.
Open world games like the Witcher 3 leave the player with this really weird interaction with plot urgency. I'm looking for someone but just barely missed them? Hurry to the next town so I don't miss them again? But then zero consequences when I ignore that quest for twenty levels.
While I don't mind openworld games, they definitely feel off, esp. with regards to the main quest. Can't save the world, gotta get this granny laid.
One of the only games with a open world that actually REQUIRED it for the game to make sense is Paradise Killers. It's a detective open world game on an island. The open world makes a lot of sense, because a detective has to find their clues. It's not a detective game if there's a counter of "clues found" or there's a linear progression. The game never tells you that you're done finding clues. Like a real detective in a real open world, you have to decide whether you've seen enough.
Agreed. Like the original linear Mirror's Edge is way better than it's open world prequel. It's my go-to example for exactly this problem.
And that Halo game I can't remember what it's called, but there's an open world Halo game and it's awful.
The biggest problem in that game, and in general, is the fact that, yeah it's an open world game, but there isn't really a lot to do, so you have to run around through the level, which is usually boring, to get to the actual next bit of the game.
It wouldn't be so bad if they just teleported you to the next bit. Then the open world aspect could be played around with on your terms, but you could also just ignore it if you wanted. But they never do that because they've made an open world, and they want you to look at it.
Ubisoft is the worst offender!
I mostly dislike open-world games because of the lazy travel systems. Either you have to run everywhere or you free fast-travel from any point, too any point.
There is no middelground.
I miss games like Morrowind, where you not only had to pay for fast-travel, but it functioned more like an actual transportation system. Like, you had to go to this city and take a Strider to that town and then a boat ride to get to your destination.
Giving the world some infrastructur and natural money drainers helps with immersion and facilitates the need to go do some side-quests every now then. You get fast-travel, but you also get to see the world that was build for you. And you don't run around as the richest douche in the world by level 10 with the best gear available because nothing costs anything.
Bethesda skipped this aspect entirely back in Oblivion and never looked back. Making your characters golden gods from the get-go, with no reason to interact with anyone or do anything except screwing around and collecting trinkets.
There's more to it, ofcause, but this is the biggest pet-peeve I have.
Here's one I genuinely love and hate at the same time. In Dark Souls and Elden Ring, you drop your souls/runes (currency) on the spot where you last died, and if you die again before recovering them, they're lost forever. You get souls and runes by killing enemies and generally progressing, so this leads to some interesting scenarios.
One one hand, it incentivizes you to spend your currency (to minimize risk of losing it) instead of just sitting on it, forcing you to make decisions on how you spend it, and whether to take the risk to save up to get more expensive items or level ups. It also forces you to play very deliberately, since there's a penalty, but only if you die twice.
But.. it makes me scared to progress, because I don't know what to expect, and I don't want to risk losing my souls/runes. Unless I have just recently lost everything and I have nothing to lose, I feel pressured to play overly carefully and never take risks and play the game in the most fun way possible, out of fear of loss. And even when I DO die and lose my currency, the freedom to play in risky ways only lasts for a short time, because as I kill enemies I start to build up my souls or runes again, and then I'm back in the same situation of not wanting to lose them.
I think that's the main reason why I haven't finished Elden Ring despite getting so close to the end. That overly careful playstyle is not very fun, but I can't get over that fear of losing my runes in order to enjoy the game more.
The run back to your body helps you build up runes too, where a game where you're loading a save it reverts progress. The souls style allows death to create progress for people struggling. If you're dying then you'll be forced to build runes up and can then go level or upgrade gear.
Usually you shouldn't be too worried about losing souls though because they're fairly easy to come by. It's a bit of a trap in souls games to value your souls too much. There are many ways to farm them that don't take much time or effort, including just going exploring side content and finding new equipment. Once you level up yourself or your gear a few times, the part you were struggling with will be easier. That's how Elden Ring especially, but even Dakr Souls, is supposed to be played. If you're struggling and don't want to be, just go somewhere else. There's plenty of content to do.
This is definitely one of the things I originally didn't like about Souls games that have come to realize is a pretty cleverly designed mechanic. Earning enough souls to purchase something shouldn't take very long and it if is, then it means you already have what you need to be succeeding in your current area. The 'git gud' joke is worn out, but genuinely you just need to learn how to face off with enemies (or run past them) until they stop being scary.
The game will not let you progress without learning how to engage with the systems it presents to you. There are typically several or many viable strategies, you just have to figure out what works for you.
By the time you're dragging yourself through a toxic poison swamp you'll realize that your level is just a number and nothing lasts forever.
I have several hundred hours across the 3 souls games and ER, and I totally get that it's a well designed mechanic, which is why I love it. and yeah, I know that valuing souls too much is a mental trap that prevents me from enjoying the game, but I just can't shake it in Elden Ring for some reason, despite doing so more easily in souls games. (though, it especially sucks in DS2 because of soul memory but that's a whole can of worms)
The souls series is one of my favorite game series of all time, and I would definitely not change the blood stain mechanic whatsoever because I think it's about perfect. Especially with rings of sacrifice (or the weird twigs) and homeward bones to give you chances to mitigate the penalty when you really think you need to. It's excellently designed and forces you to improve at the game.
Despite that, it still causes me hesitation and demotivates me from playing the games sometimes. I have to be in a specific mood to want to improve at a game, and I'm in that mood less often as I have more things I need to spend my time on, and usually play games just to relax and have an easier time nowadays. I still love Elden Ring to death and it's genuinely one of the best games ever made (in my opinion), and yet I have a love/hate relationship with death mechanics in these games.
Hate:
Lazy UI porting between PC and console. It goes both ways - radial menus showing up in a PC game or a joystick-controlled-cursor in a console game. M+KB vs controller are not comparable input methods, so trying to manage the UI with one that was built for the other is always a massive pain in the ass.
Inventory restrictions in games that throw a LOT of shit your way. Looking at you, Bethesda. Fortunately there's usually a mod of some kind to make items weigh like 0.01 lbs, or kick your slots up to 9999 or something. Sometimes realism adds to the experience... inventory management isn't one of those times.
Sluggish controls. I want to actually enjoy the Dark Souls games SO BAD - they look beautiful, I fuckin love that dark fantasy setting... but moving and combat feel like I'm driving a school bus with boxing gloves on my hands and diving flippers on my feet. I get that the cumbersome controls are a huge part of what makes it difficult, and that the difficulty is what a lot of players are after, but personally that's not a flavor of difficulty I'll ever be able to enjoy.
Love:
Good QOL features, especially involving the topics above. Like 'Hot Deposit' certain items to all designated storages in range, or AoE loot when a bunch of foes die in a pile. The quick loot style menu from Fallout 4 is another great example. Love that stuff!
Lore. Good story writing, believable/relatable characters, ESPECIALLY the antagonists. Hitting the sweet spot there is a quick ticket to my all time favorites.
Environmental challenges, with fun ways to overcome them. When I was new to Ark, one of the biggest challenges in my first play through was getting into the super cold zones and not freezing to death. My cold weather gear didn't cut it... the solution I came up with was to tame a paracer (kind of an elephant looking dino) and build a platform on its back: and made like 6 camp fires on the platform. So the I was, trudging through an insanely cold environment on a flaming elephant, cozy as can be. As a veteran player now, there are SO much more efficient methods to solving that problem, but the experience gave a unique sense of accomplishment, which is the kind of thing that got me hooked on that game.
Escorts matching the move speed of the player. 'nuff said.
Hot take, but I actually love well implemented radial menus on PC. When games bother to reset your cursor to the centre of the circle you can just quickly flick the mouse in a certain direction to make your selection, which is faster than most other mouse menus and a lot more comfortable than trying to reach for the 9 key.
Like: advanced phisics engines - some of my favourite games are phisics sandboxes
Dislike: equipment durability - it rarely adds any difficultyand is most times an anoyence
Weapon durability becomes a lot more bearable when you streamline the decision-making process to "do I want this stick" and "which stick do I want the least to make room for this new stick" and/or treat it as an exercise in zen. Leave your burdens at the shore of the dao, dear Bandicoot.
Weapon durability is fine when done well, like the Soulsborne games.
I hate it on Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom.
It's the primary reason I put down Breath of the Wild. Hit an enemy three times with a basic weapon and it breaks? Nah, I'm good.
I think if I had any sort of fandom towards Legend of Zelda as a series, I may have stuck with it, but that's just not a series I could get into when it was coming up (Link To The Past, Ocarina, etc.)
Weapon durability in, say, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is handled way better. Gun starts to slowly become inaccurate and more unreliable (more frequent jamming, which means you have to reload mid-firefight to clear the jam. I actually like that).
I think it worked really well for TotK. Unlike with BotW, I was actually kinda excited when my weapons broke because by that time, I had some new, better monster part I wanted to fuse to make a new, better weapon. It made it more fun having the weapons break so that I would be more likely to try new combinations.
It's not super painful in Soulsborne games but it's still enough of an annoyance they got rid of it in Elden Ring.
I think Achievements are useful if they're tracked separately by each save game. Minecraft does this, and I find it helpful when I return to a world save after a long time because I can use the achievements I unlocked to help remind me what I was doing and resume from there instead of looking at what clues may have been left behind.
I love New Game + mechanics. I think it's a travesty more games don't have them.
I hate excessive collectathons or overly repetitious cutscenes or dialogue. I love TotK, but the end-of-shrine bit got old real fast; I found myself missing pre-BotW heart container hunts where they could just be in a chest somewhere. I also feel exhausted just thinking about all the Koroks; I like trying to 100% save games, and the Koroks start to feel like work after a couple hundred in total.
I like when fps weapon recoil moves the player view with the recoil, particularly if the view resets back to where the player was aiming as the recoil cooldown ends. It's satisfying and also gives the player an odd feeling of agency because the recoil mechanic lets them play "can I control the hose?"
That only works, though, if the achievements resemble game progress. Some games use achievements as entirely optional bonus challenges...
Fair, but from back when I played a ton on my 360, a large number of a games' achievements were progression-based, sometimes entirely. That being said, tracking optional challenges within the save game itself can also be helpful in some instances.
For example, if there are challenges that require you to not use special weapons at all, and then you violate the challenge requirements, it could be grayed out to signify that the player locked themselves out of anything related to completing that challenge in that playthrough.
Resident Evil 4: Remake already does this to a degree, though my thought is that it would be most helpful in long rpgs, where it may not be clear after loading where you are in story or what you have and haven't done if the save hadn't been touched in months.
Oh yeah, I'm not arguing against your idea. It would need to be implemented per game anyways, so the devs can decide themselves, whether they want their achievements to be suitable or not.
Having said that, maybe what you really want is a similar idea, which I saw pitched a while ago: Dynamic recaps.
Basically, the game would detect that you haven't started it in a while, so could offer a quick rundown of the controls. And if you're loading a save from a few months ago, it could offer a quick summary of your most recent milestones in the story / game progression.
So, yeah, pretty much your idea, but it's not re-using achievements for that...
The fear mechanic in games like Diablo is really obnoxious to me. Having my character run halfway across the screen uncontrollably over and over during a fight is super fun!
Pretty much any mechanic that just takes away control from the player is a bad one. It's much better when the player can affect a negative event in some way in order to lessen the event, or just bring it to an end. I bet a fear mechanic that at least allowed you to steer your panicking character would make it a lot more palatable.
IMO reversed input is acceptable to me. If you were walking right you're flee left. If you were fleeing left, you'll walk right.
Adds fun strategy in multiplayer
I love game mechanics that reward thinking or tactical decisions rather than rewarding how much time you spend grinding this or that. I do like having some kind of character progression - and that usually comes with grinding. But I hate it when the only challenge of a game is just how many hours you can sink into it. I much prefer when there are hard skill walls that you can't pass until you really got genuinely better at the game.
I hate generic boring quests that feel like they came straight out of a story generator. It's ok to have a few of them. But a hundred of them.. You play one, you played them all.. No incentive to do them. I much prefer a game that has only 10 hours of content but very solid content with well- designed narrative and places ; rather than 2 hours of human-made content and 48 hours of generated maps and quests.
One of the best games I have ever played is Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. That game has such an insane combat and a great narrative - I just couldn't put it down, I finished it in just one or two weeks because it was so good! And at the end I felt an emptiness, like when you've just finished watching an excellent serie and wonder what to do next.
Hate:
-Real Time Timers: Think FF13 Lightning Returns. It doesn't matter how many mechanics there are to alleviate the pressure, they make me so stressed out that I don't enjoy playing the actual game.
-Unrepairable Durability Mechanics: I mean things like Breath of the Wild where you can use a weapon X times before it breaks with no way to repair it. I end up never wanting to use "my good weapon" and tryto beat entire games with a 2x4. If I can go to a vendor and repair my gear, I don't mind as much.
-Superhard Games without difficulty options. Looking at you Soulsborne games; I appreciate that some people like a challenge, but I really think that whole genre would only benefit from giving the player options. I have noticed that seems to be getting more common though.
Love:
-Meaningful Choices: Not two dialogue options with the same end result, but things that shape either story or gameplay. This could be a major branching story choice OR something like a talent tree.
-Base Building: I like build base. It doesn't have to be a city builder or strategy game (Though I absolutely love those), but I am a sucker for games including any degree of base building. It's my favourite part of the XCom games as an example. Bonus if I have to make choices about my base, see previous point.
careful, you might alert the horde with a take like that. (i do agree tho)
I am kind of used to sometimes poking the bear on this one in particular. It's what I personally dislike though, I don't necessarily think they are badly designed. I totally get some people absolutely love that kind of thing in games, and I am glad they have games that scratch that itch. It's just an instant turn-off for me though.
That said, I have never quite understood the people vehemently opposed to having a difficulty slider though; just keep it on hard and it's literally no different.
Yeah I get why people like hard games too! It's just baffling that so many are so opposed to others wanting to play on easy. I think maybe for these people they like to be "different" and be fans of something that's "different," in that it doesn't have "medium" or "easy" difficulties. They want to feel like they're part of a special club.
I think adding difficulty options is fine but the accessibility of difficulty is risky because lowering difficulty is so enticing to the average person. I love souls games but I admittedly, in games where I can change difficulty on the fly, swap the difficulty to quickly move forward if I hit a wall. On the other hand, I spent 8 hours fighting the Guardian Ape in Sekiro and beating them is my favorite gaming experience of the last 5 years. I am pro accessibility but there should be some disadvantages to doing so (ironic, less accessible accessibility options). The easy one is making them a one-chance option. For example, moving your difficulty down from hard to normal, forces you to play the rest of the game at normal (Dragon Quest XI does this). There are other considerations that can be done, hidden difficulty that gives concessions (Crash Bandicoot, RE4) or attempt to estimate a flexible difficulty.
I think with difficulty there's always going to be a question of "can we make this easier".
I think the obvious query is "why should I be punished because you can't hold back your urge to decrease the difficulty" but the reply could easily be "why should Devs do more work so you can play a game not aimed at you?"
Tl;dr: Shits complicated, cheat engine is always an option for the time being. People who mock you are losers.
There are online modes in most of those games, besides Sekiro, that difficulty options would have an effect on, particularly invasions. Fortunately, invasions have been getting scaled back as time goes on, and the games have gotten easier in general, so we might converge on a game with difficulty options.
I am not the expert on the genre by any means, but would limiting invasions to "only other people on the same difficulty" just segregate the player base too much?
Any additional reason you have to divide your matchmaking pool will divide it exponentially, so yes.
If Dark Souls had easier difficulties, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. People would turn down the difficulty instead of learning the bosses and how to beat them.
The games aren't as hard as people make them out to be. They just force you to adjust and learn to play in control. There's a reason people can play them with all kinds of goofy input options, though. If you pay attention to what enemies do and don't blindly spam attack every second, they're all beatable
I have definitely heard that argument, and I understand it, but at the same time there are a good number of us who would just simply not play the game then.
I realise it is up to the devs who they want to make their game for, and I am probably not their target audience, but banging my head against a wall until I get through something doesn't give me any kind of feeling of triumph when I manage it. I just feel frustrated. Whereas the soulslike games I have played where I could turn the difficulty down, I enjoyed way more.
Which is hilarious because people 'turn down the difficulty' constantly by using summons or 'jolly cooperation' all the time in the games and don't seem to differentiate that from a difficulty option.
But some people play them with just a Dance pad. Doesn't that, by your logic, mean they are too easy? Shouldn't they be even harder? Maybe they'd be even more famous. The point is that difficulty is relative, therefore there OBJECTIVELY isn't a correct difficulty. You're just lucky enough to fit into their "difficulty demographic".
But it's moot anyway. Games with easy modes will still get played with high difficulty by people that actually enjoy it. Your own enjoyment of a game should not depend on other peoples difficulty levels.
I'll be one of the "horde" (albeit more tame) but personally I don't think developers should make their games easier or change their vision in order to broaden its audience. It kinda reminds me of the "rated R" debate. Certain people want movies like Oppenheimer to be rated PG-13 over being rated R so it can reach a bigger audience. But I don't think Nolan should be changing his vision of the movie just so it sells better
Your comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense though? Movies can't be rated PG-13 and R at the same time, but games can have easy and hard difficulty levels at the same time. The developers don't have to "change the vision," they can just put a little tooltip that says hard is "as it was intended to be played" or something like that. I've played plenty of other games that did that.
I'm not out here wanting the game to "sell better," I'm here wanting to enjoy the handcrafted and detailed story and setting without having to worry too much about it being difficult. I'm sorry for not being interested in the challenge?
There's pros and cons to having a single standard difficulty. But anyway, you can use mods/editors to make the souls games (or any game for that matter) much easier.
I'm torn on this... I love playing Dark Souls 1/2/3/etc for the world and the enemies and exploring and overcoming the difficulties and finding cool gear and weapons and trying out new builds.
But I also absolutely hate pretty much every single boss fight in the games.
(hard coded behaviors) Like when you think that you are supposed to died but you can't, or some character seems like it could die but it can't. It feels like the devs are playing with you
I really dislike being set back far when I die or mess up. I can handle a fair bit of repetition, but replaying the exact same thing over and over because I died is frustrating and boring.
Which means that I particularly dislike when games have lousy checkpointing or save systems. I also dislike when games are too difficult and I can't turn the difficulty down to at least get past whatever is giving me a hard time. And of course, unskippable cut scenes right after a checkpoint are a classic pain in the ass.
Examples:
GTA 4 is definitely such a big motivation-killer because of these issues. Apparently it used to have no checkpoints, but then when the PC port was released they added just one checkpoint per mission apart from the bank robbery which has a whopping two checkpoints. And in typical rockstar fashion like 99% of the missions start with really long walking or driving sequences, so I agree that it got really tedious on the harder missions.
The worst thing is that it's often just that one specific mission that has shitty checkpoints. The rest is generally fine, but then you hit that wall and you want to do PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. At least that's been my experience.
Gathering mechanics in rpgs. It's a waste of time neuron activator. I want to get immersed in the world and not walk from bush to bush going grabbing flowers, rocks and sticks.
rpg grinding is a waste of time.
Sorry rpg lovers, I just genuinely hate the concept of level grinding and item collecting for the sake of expanding gameplay time.
As an old school runescape player I actually like grinding up my levels for no other reason than making the numbers go up. Something about grinding in that game feels right.
Enjoyed the way Witcher did it where you just randomly get herbs as you're running around. Never went out of my way to go find them from memory
The Witcher was actually what came to mind when I thought about games j don't like this in. Also horizon zero dawn and all the other Sony movie rpgs
Social and conversational engines (think Stardew Valley or Animal Crossing) tend to make me feel a lot lonelier than straight NPC dialogue. I think it's because NPCs are shallow enough that I don't see them as people, just people-shaped quest dispensers, but when you add social systems on top they're inevitably going to fall short and that friend-shape turns into an NPC and my brain realizes I was playing alone the whole time. I'm really looking forward to the integration of language models into games so I can actually socialize with these characters, even when they're more shallow than real people.
What I always hate is when the dialogue option description doesn't really match the dialogue your character then says.
The Mass Effect games are absolutely notorious for this.
You press the option that says "I am not so sure about that" and you character goes "You are a lying piece of shit!" *Clementine will remember this.
Life is Strange: True Colors burned me so many times with this
I think it's fun to work down a questline for an NPC, but I agree that attempts to make it more that a simple branching dialogue tend to fall a bit flat. I also tend not to like the gift giving grind a lot of games do. I much prefer to go do things with an NPC and often that forms a better bond than an NPC with more dynamic dialogue.
Something I really don't like is stamina that runs out after running for like five seconds
Hate soulslike stuff other than combat, bonus points when there's no checkpoint before a boss fight so you have to redo 50 fights just to die again and repeat the process until you've learned the boss moved... or shot yourself. Oh and you can't pause so tough luck if you ordered food or kids want something. Fromsoft are masters or marketing to sell this bullshit as something great
Also hate unskippable cutscenes, good story like witcher, ffvii remake or kotor defends itself. If you feel the need to do it chances are your story is bad and so you shouldn't. Just look at ghost of tsushima, good combat, great world and visuals. Easily an 8/10 or better potential but mostly bad story without skips makes it tedious and just not fun. A samurai fetching herbs for peasants 😂 Bonus points if you can't even pause the mighty cutscene
DS1 I feel is decent with this (could be Stockholm syndrome) and Elden Ring removes the issue almost completely. But Jesus Christ DS2 was awful in this regard. At least they added the mechanic where mobs stop respawning after you've killed them N times; I removed every single enemy from along the Smelter Demon corpse run lmao
im usually not to bothered by a few fights before the bossroom (probably because i started out with ds2)
but smelter demon was awfull until i learned the balcony jump.
I hate
What I love
I love mystery games, so--
Love: When mystery games actively draw attention to the idea that you need to draw your own conclusions about what you find in the game, and make your own truth, instead of just following a track
Hate: when the above is expressed as a formalized "Mind Palace" mechanic à la the more recent Sherlock Holmes games. That's just covering the track with a tarp instead of letting you build your own theories. Either let people accuse who they want with the evidence they have (once again I plug Paradise Killer) or acknowledge that there's only one acceptable answer
Sounds like you'd love and hate Phoenix Wright.
I've played a little. It's okay. The one I was playing didn't do anything approximating the Mind Palace and was very, very linear-- which I think is better than the Sherlock Holmes style games. It was the everything else about it that annoyed me into turning it off!
Finite items in elden ring
I'll never use them
That's one aspect I like about (difficult) roguelikes. You still don't want to waste finite items, but if you don't use them, you'll go game over and therefore waste all of them.
Obligatory grinding. Like all those "retrieve my friends bracelet from the Torture Chamber of the Bloodseeking Ghouls". You're just running around doing the same things over and over again. Finding the place, killing everything, going back, talk to person A, get referred to person B, etc etc.
This is why I don't play MMOS anymore. They are padded by crap like this.
Like: open world combat where you can plan and use geography to your advantage.
Hate: Inventory management
Do huge fucking cliffs and invisible walls count as mechanics?
I know equipment durability does and that can fuck right off.
One thing I love is when the game mechanics are well grounded in the world. A recent good example of this was in Tears of the Kingdom; in one cutscene you actually see Zelda use the Purah Pad to fast-travel out of trouble just like you also can. It elevates it from a gaming conceit to something actually part of the world.
I usually dislike weapon durability (eg, in Fallout), but Zelda is the one game where I actually liked it. Perhaps because in Zelda, it was a central mechanic that the game was designed and balanced around.
For most games, durability is something that the game isn't really designed around and feels more forced in. When you can repair your gear (as you usually can), durability just means every now and then you gotta deal with the annoyance of repairing.
The annoying part in Zelda was where you'd acquire and destroy your weapon in just a small handful of swings, like the kingdom of Hyrule had the world's worst blacksmiths.
The new Zelda games are what solidified my hatred of durability. Oh look I finished this quest line and got a fancy sword that's a reference to an older game! Time to put it on a shelf and never use it so it doesn't explode and go away forever.
The one thing they could've done that would have made the whole thing tolerable was if the special weapons from your allies were unlimited. The Eagle Bow, the Boulder Smasher, etc. At least then you would always have one thing in whichever style you liked that you could just use without always worrying about. Instead those are the most expensive hardest to get weapons and they still have fucking durability. It just makes everything worse and every reward less rewarding.
I agree with you on those special weapons. I dunno why the heck they made those so rare or expensive while also not being that durable. I don't find it an issue for most normal weapons, though, especially with the fuse mechanic in TotK. I like how it forces me to vary things up and allows for regular treasure chests or drops to actually give you something you can use (even if it's basically like a short lasting consumable).
Don't waste my time. That's my biggest thing in games. Death Stranding was fun but holy shit. Everything had animations. Just sooooo many. It made even the most simple tasks take so long. Why do I need to see so much when I deliver a box? Why do I need to see Sam get in a truck? It irks me so much.
It would help if there was unique animations each time, but it's the same exact movement that makes it get tiresome.
Guild Wars 1
Having a character of one main class and a secondary class that could be switched at any time between any of the 9 classes.
8-slot skillbar with one heroic skill that could only come from your main class.
400+ total skills in the game.
Plenty of room for you to make your own homebrew builds, and some classic builds that were outside the box:
The assassin that used a staff (assacaster), the ranger that used necro skills to touch people to death (touch ranger), and the 55 monk, which had almost no hp but so much healing it was hard to kill.
It will always be my MMORPG because of the character design.
If "Secret World Legends" isn't already on your radar, it might be up your alley.
Haven't played GW1, but SWL has a moveset similar to what you described.
It's set in modern day, with the premise that all myths, conspiracy theories, urban legends etc are all true - and frequently need to be contained. There are three factions: STRONGLY recommend you choose Illuminati (best faction story line by a long shot).
The investigative missions will make you feel like a moron, but in a weirdly good way. SUPER satisfying to figure them out without looking up hints online.
Not a game I hear mentioned much, but man Secret World had so many great things going for it. The best quest design in a MMO* I have ever seen, and a really unique setting too. Shame it was managed so badly, in an alternate world where TSW took off and was still getting content updates, I would be thrilled.
*MMO-ish in Legends.
I really appreciate that in MGSV when you move to first person view for iron sight aiming, the controls change to properly feel like a first person shooter. In contrast GTAV and RDR2 also have first person modes, but you still have the character movement of third person and it feels very wonky.
I hate the overwhelming number of currencies and crafting supplies. I shouldn't need to have to gather so much of this thing and so much of this other thing (neither of which are labeled clearly, what they are and how to find them) to craft things. A small number of things makes sense, e.g. metal and powder to make ammunition, but when this potion requires 5 different plants and that potion needs 7, only some of which are common between them, it's an unnecessary time suck.
Then, when I have an abundance of various supplies, I have to go to the blacksmith to repair my armor, run over to the jeweler to craft bigger gems, then go to the chest to stash things, go over here for various upgrades, and over there to craft the next potion I need. Why can't all these things be in one place or at least right next to each other instead of scattered all over town?
And to add on to that, let crafting access your stash with everything in it. Don't make me carry 10k iron to the blacksmith to craft the sword then 20 gems to the magician to enchant it or some nonsense, especially when there are inventory limits. I have it, it's in my storage, let me use it.
Not really a game mechanic by definition, but I hate forced PvP in open world/MMO style games. Even survival games, where one could argue it fits.
I won't buy a game if they do this, so I guess in that sense the PvP is a choice.
Destiny did this. I have no idea why people love that game, btw. The guns and the environment are well designed, and the story (if you call it that) teases of science fiction. But that's all the positives about it.
The secrets are so bad that you need to follow a Youtube guide and would probably never discover them in a lifetime. The raids are a huge chore of completely arbitrary series of mechanics that are never explained. You grind for weapons and they get nerfed. You keep doing the same missions again and again and again. Your trophies that you firmed for in year can just go away without notice. The damned thing does not even run on Linux. The list of ways it is unfun goes on.
Having well placed saved points and QOL features is absolutely amazing. I'm not interested in spending 10-15m running back / repeating myself just because the save progression system is rubbish. A lot more developers are more respectful of your time in that regard so it's a great improvement
I feel save points themselves are becoming an increasingly archaic design choice. Just let us save anywhere, especially in a single player game. I think most people are just suspending games without expressly saving most of the time.
It's going to depend on the game. If you're making a game like Resident Evil, half of that game's brilliance is in where it puts its save points.
Totally fair. Particularly in survival horror where saves are explicitly limited to highten tension, that makes sense.
Love: weapon durability so long as it’s paired with weapon building and leveling systems. I like that I can’t ever take a weapon for granted and that I can’t hack and slash without thinking. I have Dark Cloud in mind as I’m writing this - it was easily my favorite weapons system I’ve ever played, and it always kept me on my toes. It’s a kind of stress I appreciate because I have some measure of control over it as long as I plan and slow down a little.
Hate: timed anything. Way too much pressure, and it pushes me back towards going faster and not thinking so I can beat the timer, which I don’t like. I especially hate it because I primarily play turn-based JRPGs to get away from having to worry about timing and to be able to play at my own pace. If I wanted to do time-sensitive stuff, I’d play an action game.
This is really a "it takes all kinds" moment for me. I can't think of a mechanic I dislike more than weapon durability. It makes me feel like I have to "save" my good weapon and only use it for boss fights or something.
In a way, it's cool to hear how and why someone loves it, even if I don't relate.
I used to make my wife do timed quests in video games because it would stress me out so much. When I played Ocarina of Time, I made her do the one for the trading game where you have to go all the way across the map in a short amount of time, and I literally had to leave the room because it was so stressful. I can't play Majora's Mask for the same reason.
While I don't play the actual game, I am a massive fan of the Escape from Tarkov inventory system. Its extremely detailed; a totally unreasonably detailed system for how every item fits into or on every other item. I've watched a few dozen hours of the game just looking for how people manage bags within bags within bags, within bags. I love how simulator-y the inventory is. Normally I hate that, I like sortable menus and proper categories for lists of my items, but wow is EfT's inventory something that has really captured my brain.
FINALLY someone mentioned this stupid game's inventory!
I've been playing EFT on and off for a couple of years now I think, and it's the inventory that feels the best for me. I keep reading and hearing people praising the gun building, but that's more of a pain in the... everywhere, really, for many reasons, and firefights are even more frustrating knowing that the game poses as a "realistic" shooter (the recoil and inertia make 0 sense in that context), but nobody ever talks about the inventory!
Even some of the mods for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Anomaly and the like that aim to liken the experience to that of Escape From Tarkov never work on bringing the modular, limited grid-based inventory system that makes you account for the items size rather than just their weight.
I don't even care about guns or quests in this game - I just like looting and messing with my inventory, be it in-raid or out-of-raid.
Hate: Tapping, quick time events, looting animations, long loading screens especially when you're expected to die often, game taking control away from the player or excessive input latency, long NPC expositions for fetch quests.
Love: addictive gameplay loops that are borderline checklists but fun (Far Cry, Days Gone hordes, Ghost of Tsushima camps etc.), environmental impact like in Death Stranding/reactive NPCs like in Bethesda RPGs.
QTE can be done well imho, for example in Yakuza series they are rare enough to not annoy you and not THAT important but if you can hit them when they appear, it makes your hit just more powerful
I absolutely loathe double tap to dodge mechanics.
Terraria does this, everyone who played it with me thinks it's reasonable to fear accidentally dodging into an enemy when trying to walk slowly with a keyboard.
This is 10 times worse on controllers, because dodging just becomes irritating and janky as fuck - if I need to dodge a bullet, I don't want to fight the kinetic energy of my finger for an entire fourth of a second and hope I am fast enough.
this genuinely made me ragequit cyberpunk 2077 more than once. The game has a double tap to dodge mechanic that you cannot turn off (last I checked, at least) and is active even when crouching, and you dodge like 2 meters forward or a meter in any other direction. This means that stealth is borderline impossible if you're on keyboard and are not very deliberate with your button presses. One accidental double tap and oops now the ENTIRE warehouse knows where you are (another major flaw with cyberpunk's stealth system)
There is a way to change this via mods, if you're still interested in Cyberpunk. I just finished my first playthrough and one of the first things I did was figure out how to rebind Dodge to Alt.
The Silent Silencers mod and Stealthrunnner also makes stealth much more enjoyable.
I love mechanics that add another dimension to a level or stage, like Titanfall 2's time traveling or Duke Nukem's shrink ray
Love - auto health or shield regen. When I first experienced that in Halo it made me instantly hate other games that didn’t have some form of that mechanic.
I hate managing health inventory items. It breaks gameplay flow with tedious bullshit that isn’t nearly as fun as focusing on the a combat mechanic.
I'm exactly the opposite. I feel like regeneration makes avoiding damage feel trivial and doesn't reward you for playing well.
You also have to wait around hiding to heal INSTEAD of playing the game. Same thing with reloading. That's why doom 2016 and eternal so good.
Auto health makes the game oriented around taking as much cover as possible. You just pop out, shoot, and then jump back to hiding again.
The newer Doom games for example uses limited health to force you be that cool action hero who is participating in the action. Health is regained by killing enemies. If they had regen the player would just be back to hiding behind covers like cowards.
Doom was interesting because it was a solution to both of those problems at once. Doom shouldn't be a cover shooter, but hunting for health packs is not action packed or fun, so the enemies became health packs.
The Estus Flask in Dark Souls was great. You couldn't spam a million of them on a boss fight but you also got them all back when you were safe. There wereots of things to dislike but that was a major positive. And to your point, it's not buried in a menu either. It's just right there.
Collecting hidden items. Ever since Assassin's Creed 2 with the fucking feathers, I have hated collecting hidden items. Especially when they gain you absolutely nothing except an achievement. It's like they are trying to artificially increase the number of hours played.
I'm with you when it's generic, way too numerous items like those damned feathers.
I'm all for collectibles when they're interesting, meaningful, and not too numerous. But I think most games and especially open world games really just want to pad the completionist time.
Horizon is a game that did collectibles much better, with the exception perhaps of data points (which aren't marked on the map for some reason). The collectibles in Horizon are unique, have story, and are usually actually interesting to get to. I noticed often in Horizon, they were just so interesting to either get to (the case for ornaments) or had fascinating story (like the ones that unlock images of the past).
Love:
Base building. Fortifying against enemies and being creative is a blast.
Exploration and big worlds. Games like Borderlands, Fallout and Far Cry with unique environments and ambiance.
Hate:
Escort missions. After all these years they're still not fun.
Excessive health bars. Having to carry several different kinds of potions, etc. One of my favorite games is Dark Cloud for the PS2, but I think it had health, mana, weapon health, thirst and effects like poison that never cleared until you took a certain potion. I believe I used a GameShark or similar to get rid of thirst and weapon health.
Not something I essentially hate, but I roll my eyes every time there is a running-out-of-a-crumbling-building-before-it-collapses scene in a game.
Starting with what I dislike: collectibles (or pickup upgrades). They spread these out over the levels and I find myself scouring the map to see if i didn't miss anything. It ruins the pacing of the game. Some examples of my recent plays that do this are the Last of Us games and the Mass Effect trilogy. If the game is build around exploring your surroundings, it's a different story of course.
What I really like in games is character building and i love it when a character improves depending on your playstyle. A very solid example is Skyrim's leveling system. It just feels more organic.
Hate:
Love:
I strongly dislike ingame teleporting and pause menu quick travel. I'd much rather the game have more ways for me to get to where I'm going than simply materializing wherever I want to be.
Let the travel itself be part of the game instead of just a way to link the "real" parts of the game together. Make it fun and fast to move around, add unlockable shortcuts, add more in-universe traveling options. Let me get to where I'm going myself instead of doing it for me, and make it fun to do so.
Especially in open world games, not only is this the most true, but they're the worst offenders. Literally what is the point of making an open world and then letting people skip it? You see everything once and that's it. If you make an open world full of opportunities to wander and explore, and then players want to avoid it as much as possible via teleportation, you have failed as a designer.
Time is limited. I don’t want to spend 30 minutes traveling from one side of a map to the next if I’ve already done that 15 times. Just let me get there immediately so I can talk to this single person and get this item I will never use.
I'm honestly fine with traveling if it's interesting. That's what I disliked most about red dead 2 was even with the beautiful landscape and soundtrack and the random encounters, pretty much every one of your 50 trips to [insert nearby settlement] within a given chapter are going to be exactly the same, and you can't go very fast because you're on a horse.
I’m pretty sure Death Stranding didn’t have fast travel, and I think it worked quite well there. Part of the challenge is to learn the best route between the stations, so it’s well incorporated into the gameplay. There’s barely any enemies on your way either, and those that exist are easily avoidable.
Traveling in Death Stranding is the game though. Enemies are only one part of the challenge; there's also terrain and how much cargo you can carry on the way, even if you've taken that route before.
Death Stranding is Kojima attempting to sell out by making a walking simulator and accidentally putting too much work into it.
I found Death Stranding to be a game that, even though it has combat in it, it's a solid demonstration of how many different types of mechanics we could be building a game around besides combat, even with a story and high production value.
I would go as far as to say that the combat is the weakest part of the gameplay. I did not enjoy the boss battles and had to turn down the difficulty for them.
I guess the combat was the weakest part, but it composes such a small part of the game that it made plenty of sense. From that perspective, I found it weird that it had any boss battles at all.
Absolutely. Those combat arenas made no sense at all.
If we're talking about those environmental bosses, I'm down for those cause running away without falling down is sort of core gameplay.
But damn, I did not ask to have to play mandatory Call if Duty
Enjoyed the traveling in Ghost of tsushima. Never felt like a choir there
Or just let me call them on a call phone.
How do you incorporate phones in Skyrim?
They never said Skyrim.
I'm not talking 30 minutes. There should be options that let the player do it in a few, depending on the scale.
You're encouraging bad design in order to facilitate bad content. There also shouldn't be much if any mailman content either, that's just filler.
Age of Wushu needed less teleport slots.
I am really conflicted on this, and I think there needs to be some balance or cost/reward. I mostly agree though.
An example I often use about this is in MMOs. WoW felt like a huge world, especially back in vanilla. You could fly end to end and never hit a loading screen, it felt awesome. If you gave me a map of Azeroth and asked me to label all the zones, I probably could. It's moved a bit more to people teleporting place to place, but I still can fly end to end of a continent.
On the other hand, FFXIV is a series of maps with loading zones between all of them (a necessity because of the older console architecture, I understand) and teleports in every town. You never actually go end to end of Eorzea. If you gave me a map of Eorzea and asked me to label only the three majors cities on it, I doubt I could. It is definitely convenient to just be able to warp around place to place for a trivial amount of currency.
It takes a lot out of the feeling of "world" to just have a bunch of arbitrary areas, I admit. It's a tough balancing act between player convenience and player immersion.
I think MMOs need fast travel because sometimes you just want to meet your friends in X dungeon and all the scenic travel is just an obstacle to that. There shouldn't be barriers to the social aspect of these games. MMOs have more than enough padding already, if people want the immersive experience they can choose to do that on their own.
Yeah, FFXIV makes is super convenient to revisit a place once you've already been there via the aetheryte, meaning you're probably not going to visit it on foot more than a few times. This means you don't really make that connection between zones (or at least, I didn't) and thus don't really view it as an interconnected world (the loading areas between each zone doesn't really help).
I'm struggling to give proper credit to WoW because I'm not sure if its the staggering amount of time I played the game, the time of my life when I played the game (younger brain retaining knowledge better?), or the seamless transition between zones which lends it to sticking in my memory so hard as a 'real, interconnected world'... probably a combination of the three, if we're being honest.
Games that give you rapid and fun ways to travel have been ones that I've actually not found tedious to get from point a to point b. Methods I've like have been blink (teleporting short distances), grapple hook, super speed, flying, etc.
But, just old fashioned running or driving gets stale fast.
I love when games use as few invisible walls as possible, and don't stop you from exploring weird places or even out of bounds. There doesn't even have to be a reward, just the feeling of getting somewhere where you're not supposed to be is enough. Ultrakill and Anodyne 2 both do this really well.
I also love rich, responsive, low-restriction movement mechanics, which kinda ties in with the first point. I love when games let me chain all sorts of moves together for wild bullshit midair acrobatics, zipping and bouncing and flinging myself all over the place constantly. Good examples are Ultrakill, Pseudoregalia, Sally Can't Sleep, and Cruelty Squad. On the flipside, Demon Turf is a game I hated and dropped quickly because of how artificially and pointlessly limited the movement felt.
You might like the Serious Sam games. The developers didn't really bother with invisible walls and so on most levels you can go in any direction until either the level geometry prevents you or until you reach the point where the developers finally gave a shit and put an invisible wall. It even rewards you for this on quite a few levels with some really well hidden secret goodies.
The junction system in Final Fantasy VIII. The magic system is based on the amount of spells you have left in an inventory and you can also equip them to your character's stats. If you don't take the time to acquaint yourself with the system your stats will take a dive because you're casting spells like in a more traditional game. The upside to this is if you hoard enough spells and equip them to the right stats you can be unstoppable since early game.
I mostly play turn based JRPGs. My main gripe with any video game is excessive interacting with menus and inventories. I want to play a game, not enter submenus of submenus to change minute things. So here's some features to combat that:
Queues: lining up research or skills to learn, so I don't have to enter the fucking menus after every battle/minute.
Skill/Equipment sets: let me save my setups. Give me a few slots, and a warning if some part of that setup is used by another character. Heck, give me a way to save whole party setups, so I can have e.g. fire-killer team of ice-themed abilities on all characters. Or just have a standard ability set for progression and a second, temporary one for skill learning or whatnot.
Chained Echoes and FFVIIR had some good QoL improvements, but how many times do I have to shuffle materia or accessories, just because I'm leveling something? Every second encounter, because something is maxed and I have to swap it out for something else?
And Inventory management, that can make or break a game. Some of those submenus take half a minute to enter before you even do anything. Astria Ascending (I don't recommend) was awful in that regard and guilty of everything mentioned above.
Fucking menus man... Give me some elaborate customizable skill setup slots and queues, please.
I love simple controls or an elegant way to control simply. For example using one thumb to control two buttons simultaneously or the Super Mario Run control scheme where you only press on the touch screen, doesn't matter where, and that's it.
I hate it when in co-op game the other player's actions can screw up the game e.g. moving the screen too far so the other player dies.
Have you tried Divekick? It's a 2d fighting game (IE, like Street Fighter) that only uses two buttons for 100% of the controls.
No, I haven't. I looked up a video of it and the fighting reminds me of TMNT arcade games which I like. I might give it a try some day.
Forced sections in AAA games. If you wander left or wander right or jump or sneak a direction it didn't want you get a mysterious death. Just make it a cutscene if you are going to pidgeonhole me so much assasins creed, or a cartoon movie.
One of my favorites that I fell in love with was a particular class on an MMO game called Rift. It was the chloromancer. In practice it was tricky and arguable how effective it is but it was a healer class that provided raid/group heals by doing damage. Your damage attacks would provide the heals.
Just a neat concept I immediately fell in love with.
Brigette in Overwatch heals by attacking enemies if you wanted to try another example of that idea.
I hate stealth. I want to go everywhere guns blazing. This is what ruined the Farcry series for me. Having unskippable stealth sections.
Combos. I don't like them when they're intentional by the developer, they need to be something that you feel like you've discovered on your own. I hear Baba is You is pretty good about that.
I recently observed a game of MtG where a newish player was playing a scry deck, some premade or something, had a guy who would scry every time a creature dropped, and a guy who would place counters every time he scried. He'd edited the deck slightly, added a creature that spawned tokens every time it received counters. Managed to get them all out at once before realising what he'd done; straight up had to ask if tokens count as creatures dropping because he wasn't sure if infinite combos were real. That's a good feeling, because it's something he did, not something that was given to him.
Contrast League or Overwatch or whatever where the devs have specific ideas about how characters should work and will aggressively destroy things outside of that. Or just modern Magic.
Diablo 3 was fucking terrible about this. anytime a good combo was discovered they would nerf it. it's a single player game, just let me have my overpowered bullshit.
Have you ever tried Skullgirls? You can form a team of up to three characters, and you can select just about any move they have as an assist, forming some wild synergies.
I have tried Skullgirls. I will not try it again.
Tag fighters are pretty good for this though, you're right, and especially when you can choose the assist move.
I hate anything that stops me from playing the game. Stun mechanics, usually, but I also include quick time events.
The one that sticks in my mind was those dumb water mages in genshin impact. They trap you in a bubble and hold you there for a few seconds. If it's an intense enough fight, a few seconds is an incredibly long time, and you're just sitting there watching the game happen and you've lost your agency. It's worse for me because I had built shields and healing into my team to shore up my shortcomings with dodging. It felt clever, but them the game sends in this mechanic which invalidates my solution.
With quick time events, I just get annoyed at the genre switch. Don't get me wrong, there are cool enough cinematics out there... It's just... Like usually I'm watching these and thinking, "wow, that would've been fun to do, you know, myself."
Nevermind that I'm too ADHD. Like I have cats and a partner and a phone. If I get a buzz or whatever else, I might miss the prompt. Or if I ignore the buzz, whatever that might have been can sometimes get discarded in my brain.
For positivity:
I love team building. The interplay of abilities, the hard choices with limited slots and opportunity cost. Finding unintentional synergies, or even stumbling on them. Its all a dream, and it's part of why I love ttrpgs so much.
I can sometimes get so bogged down (positive) with team building I never make it amywhere in the game itself.
Also love me a good physics engine. God knows how many hours I spent building stupid shit in Garry's Mod. I learned to code before I played that game, so it was delightful to put those skills to use with wiremod as a little kid. LoZ: ToTK I have like 1000 hrs logged just fucking around in the builder spot at the base of Tarry Town.
@MJBrune I think I really like timed challenges even if I'm not very good at them.
Like block -> parry
Also with tolerance areas where you can hit a "passing" "good" or "perfect" score.
I hate games that don't give any indication of when you're supposed to do it. They'll give you some tutorial on it and say "right before you're hit" but good luck figuring out if you're doing it too late or too early.
I've never gotten over how annoying the food / injury system in Metal Gear Solid 3 was. I almost didn't play it because 30 minutes in it pissed me off so much.