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.
You must log in or # to comment.
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).
It amazes me that for decades this shit mechanic is still used.
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 :)
Elite dangerous is a multiplayer game. If you want to go do something else and don’t have time to put your spaceship somewhere safe, you can always exit to the main menu. It only takes a few seconds and when you come back your ship is exactly where you left it.
The game definitely has issues, but not being able to pause isn’t really one of them
I never really bothered with the multiplayer mode in it - I know the game was built with a multiplayer back end, but they did promise a single player mode, and they do present the game as having a single player/solo mode.
Obviously different things annoy different people, and I do get what you mean about quitting and restarting etc, but it was enough for me to stop bothering to play it and play X4:Foundations instead. I did still get over a hundred hours play out of it, so I don’t exactly feel hard done by, but if quitting to the main menu works, then it’s clearly mechanically possible for them to let you pause it, they just didn’t want to.
The problem with Elite Dangerous is that it is basically an online game, even in solo play and they never bothered to figure out a way for solo players to pause.
This is true for all of the examples of this problem that I’m aware of.
Soulslikes can’t be paused and it has nothing to do with online play. Fromsoft just hates working adults.
I think it probably has something to do with online play, though, since Fromsoft’s multiplayer model revolves around invasion. Granted you can turn it off, so obviously there should be a pause option, but I have a vague hunch that the two issues are related from a dev/engineering perspective.
It also seems to keep cropping up in janky 3D Unity games, “We can’t allow pause because it breaks all the physics”.
“your choices matter”
Love the concept, but most of the time, they do not matter.
I absolutely hate that concept, as even when, or especially if, it matters, it’s in the most cookie-cutter binary in-your-face kind of way, literally “(a) eat baby (b) safe baby”.
I don’t mind choice in games, but it should be actual choice, i.e. you do things because you want to do them, not because you think they will make the story go to the “good ending” or worse yet, be forced on you to stay on the good path, as the game is only build for good and bad path and everything in the middle is just mechanically broken.
The best choices in games are fully mechanics driven or just cosmetic, though that’s pretty damn rare in narrative games. In most games choice is generally just bad and annoying, as you aren’t focused on the actual game or story, but on what the writer might consider to be the “good way”.
That good old fragile “suspension of disbelief” gets shattered by choice systems very very easily.
That’s why games like dwarf fortress, project zomboid, are more about taking proper decisions
I think the best I’ve seen it done is in Prey 2017. Lots of really good mechanics driven choices that are actually choices.
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.
at the very “screen”
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.
Dude same with shows. I’m sorry but if I have to watch a whole season before it gets good I’m not watching. I respect my time, they should too.
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 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?”
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!
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
