Nitpicky design failure (Merge'd Game Mechanics)

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Jack Saladin » Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:58 pm UTC

aion7 wrote:Also, fishing. It sucks. It's even worse when required. I'm looking at you, Twilight Princess.

Hah, I actually always love fishing minigames. Okami's was awesome. But yeah, any minigame should never be mandatory, because someone is always going to absolutely loathe it.

All escort missions suck, except ICO, which was one huge escort mission - so they actually worked on making sure it didn't suck, and managed to make one of the greatest games of all time.

There are a million things in Bethesda and Rockstar titles (well, ES, Fallout 3, and GTA) that are totally crap when looked at as individual elements. In fact, most gameplay elements of those games tend to suck hard - it's a major accomplishment that those developers can still make an incredible experience out of those pieces*.

*GTAIV excluded. GTAIV sucked.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Isaac Hill » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:35 pm UTC

How many games have context-sensitive buttons with two opposite actions? In Zelda: Ocarina of Time, I get on the horse and push A to accelerate. However, if I'm not moving fast enough on the horse yet, A is dismount. Repeat. There are enough unused buttons when horse riding to make go faster and stop entirely different buttons.

In Windwaker, the world is set up as islands on a 7x7 grid. Two of the warp locations are at 2B and 3C. You need to go to 1A. However, if you warp to 2B, you're in a valley that you can only warp out of. To get to 1A, you have to warp to 3C, then sail past 2B. They could have switched the islands at 2B and 3C and made going to the NW area of the game a bit simpler.

In Majora's Mask, I would have liked to have been able to kill annoying NPCs and take whatever they had, rather than go through their mini games. Actually, I'd usually like to do that in any game, but in MM the NPC would be OK when I reset the 3 day cycle, so there'd be no repercussions.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Clumpy » Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:58 pm UTC

@Talon:

Actually, I think my computer had a bug - the airstrikes didn't clear the arena for me and I had to restart about a hundred times. The part with the mines in Half-Life is one of my worst experiences in the history of gaming.

Deus Ex was (is) fantastic, but the infinitely-respawning dinosaurs or whatever they were near the end didn't do it for me.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby phlip » Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:43 am UTC

I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Zelda... the topic clearly says "awesome games"... :P

Isaac Hill wrote:How many games have context-sensitive buttons with two opposite actions?

I've been playing Super Mario Sunshine recently (the Wii is the first console I've owned in about a decade, so I'm catching up on GCN games too)... When hanging from a vertical grating, A is jump off, B is punch the grate. When hanging under a horizontal grating, A is punch the grate, B is let go. You can move from a horizontal grating to a vertical one just by moving towards it, but to move vice-versa you need to jump off and then catch again. Naturally, there are long stretches of grating where you have to switch between the two pretty constantly. Which results in a several-second pause before I press either button, just to make sure I'm pressing the right one.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Kazuke
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:55 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Kazuke » Thu Nov 13, 2008 6:33 pm UTC

I was playing Mercenaries just now. Since the bad guys can't shoot you worth a damn, they run you over with their vehicles instead. Even if you have 100% health, it kills you instantly.

Also, Battlefront II needs a melee option.

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:14 am UTC

pseudoidiot wrote:Plot-driven doors.

Where you have to go up to the top of a twenty story building to find a switch that's heavily guarded by unbelievably strong opponents just so that you can open a door that you should have been able to open with your lightsaber or rocket launcher (Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2, I'm looking at you! :evil: )

Clumpy wrote:Enemies with huge shields and weak points at their backs.

I hate full body armour that is rocket proof . . . but has a small weak spot in their back and can easily be killed with your weakest gun (the Invisible war, that is yet ANOTHER reason that people don't like you)

Vellyr wrote:Swimming in just about every game ever.


Kazuke wrote:Escort Missions. See: Goldeneye

Is it anything like the one in Max Payne 2: The Fall Of Max Payne
Spoiler:
where your Mona Sax and you have to snipe the cleaning company commando's while moving around a huge construction site? . . . or the other one where you are in Vinnie Gognitie's used car lot and you have to protect him while he's in that mascot suit that will blow up if he dies or takes it off


Mzyxptlk wrote:Speaking of Half-Life 2, infinite rocket/grenade crates.

It was useful but I hated it

Clumpy wrote:Deus Ex was (is) fantastic, but the infinitely-respawning dinosaurs or whatever they were near the end didn't do it for me.

First of all, they were transgenic's. Second, you have to close the blast doors before you run out of ammo because . . . well, you always need ammo! :mrgreen: . . . also, I agree with it being fantastic! :mrgreen:

kazuke wrote:Also, Battlefront II needs a melee option.

Every game needs one . . . more than one. Especially WW1 and WW2 games (you need to be able to have a bayonet and be able to hit them with your rifle but!)

Kazuke
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:55 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Kazuke » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:19 am UTC

A sidearm with unlimited ammo would be nice too. Nothing too powerful, just something that can be used when your hard hitters run out of juice. Something to kill a baddie and steal his gun with, like the WWII Liberator pistol.

"What am I supposed to use? Harsh Language?"

guyy
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby guyy » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:35 am UTC

Playable characters' absolutely ridiculous carrying capacity. How does Link carry around dozens of giant bombs in a "bag" not even big enough to hold one? What gives Gordon Freeman the ability to carry around 10-15 huge guns plus plenty of ammo and a few grenades, yet still retain the speed and agility of a ninja? It's kind of a hard thing to avoid, but it's always bugged me.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:40 am UTC

That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby lorenith » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:47 am UTC

guyy wrote:Playable characters' absolutely ridiculous carrying capacity. How does Link carry around dozens of giant bombs in a "bag" not even big enough to hold one? What gives Gordon Freeman the ability to carry around 10-15 huge guns plus plenty of ammo and a few grenades, yet still retain the speed and agility of a ninja? It's kind of a hard thing to avoid, but it's always bugged me.


Bag of holding/hammer space, also what Jack Saladin said.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Xanthir » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:59 am UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.

We are talking nitpicky design failures here.

Carrying a realistic inventory wouldn't have to be bad. Halo gets fairly close to it since it only allows you to carry two guns and a handful of grenades at a time.

However, Link does indeed have a bag of holding. How else can he swim with iron boots in his inventory, when putting them on causes him to sink?
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:11 am UTC

guyy wrote:Playable characters' absolutely ridiculous carrying capacity. How does Link carry around dozens of giant bombs in a "bag" not even big enough to hold one? What gives Gordon Freeman the ability to carry around 10-15 huge guns plus plenty of ammo and a few grenades, yet still retain the speed and agility of a ninja? It's kind of a hard thing to avoid, but it's always bugged me.

Because how else can you kill all the interdimentional aliens without a shit-load of guns and ammo? . . . WAIT!!! His H.E.V. suit! That's what! :mrgreen:

Jack Saladin wrote:That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.

A realistic inventory like 2 large guns, 2 side-arms, a melee weapon and a couple grenades? . . . well, that's how I'd set up a FPS if I made one! :mrgreen: . . . although, I would probably make an FPS/RPG hybrid game (because they are better than FPS's)

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Jack Saladin » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:13 am UTC

We are talking nitpicky design failures here.

... Yeah, and that isn't a design failure at all. It's a specific design choice that makes a better game. The only sense in which that is a "failure" is if you're standard of success is mimicking realism. This isn't "list unrealistic things in videogames", thank christ, because there's not enough space on the internet to store that list.

In something like a simple FPS it's possible to achieve that, but it would ruin a Zelda.

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Klapaucius » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:15 am UTC

Xanthir wrote:
Jack Saladin wrote:That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.

We are talking nitpicky design failures here.

Carrying a realistic inventory wouldn't have to be bad. Halo gets fairly close to it since it only allows you to carry two guns and a handful of grenades at a time.

However, Link does indeed have a bag of holding. How else can he swim with iron boots in his inventory, when putting them on causes him to sink?


Correction: Iron boots, ninety bombs, a man-sized top, and a wrecking ball.
500%!

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Jebobek » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:28 am UTC

TV show's explanation:
DiC came up with some creative solutions out of their difficulties, one of which was Link’s pouch. To explain how Link is able to carry bombs, boomerangs, Shields and other nifty items, DiC used Magic to shrink the items down so they could fit in Link’s pocket. Because Link couldn’t actually KILL anyone (mostly due to the rating board) DiC invented the EVIL JAR. A big Jar of pink smoke resided in the underground lair. Whenever Link zapped an enemy with his sword, they got de-energized back into the jar. An interesting convention and one which explains why when you hit an enemy in the game they just disappear.
Source here
Image

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Klapaucius » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:31 am UTC

Jebobek wrote:TV show's explanation:
DiC came up with some creative solutions out of their difficulties, one of which was Link’s pouch. To explain how Link is able to carry bombs, boomerangs, Shields and other nifty items, DiC used Magic to shrink the items down so they could fit in Link’s pocket. Because Link couldn’t actually KILL anyone (mostly due to the rating board) DiC invented the EVIL JAR. A big Jar of pink smoke resided in the underground lair. Whenever Link zapped an enemy with his sword, they got de-energized back into the jar. An interesting convention and one which explains why when you hit an enemy in the game they just disappear.
Source here


This is the Ratchet and Clank handwave, except theirs uses a Sufficiently Advanced version nanotechnology to make the weapons 'nanoscopic'. And the enemy-vaporization is straight out of Pac-Man.
500%!

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Xanthir » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:35 am UTC

Klapaucius wrote:
Xanthir wrote:
Jack Saladin wrote:That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.

We are talking nitpicky design failures here.

Carrying a realistic inventory wouldn't have to be bad. Halo gets fairly close to it since it only allows you to carry two guns and a handful of grenades at a time.

However, Link does indeed have a bag of holding. How else can he swim with iron boots in his inventory, when putting them on causes him to sink?


Correction: Iron boots, ninety bombs, a man-sized top, and a wrecking ball.

Eh, not really a correction. None of those cause him to sink when he uses them (if he even *can* use them while swimming). On the other hand, iron boots are simply put on feet=sink, put in bag=float.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:40 am UTC

Call of Duty 2 . . . You can shoot the Nazi's a couple of times and they die . . . they shoot you a couple of times and you die . . . they shoot at you and run out of ammo and your too close for them to reload so they run at you and hit you with their rifle but . . . you die much quicker than if the Nazi shot you because the rifle but is stronger than rifle/machine-gun/pistol rounds . . . I don't think that is right at all! :evil:

User avatar
lorenith
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:35 am UTC
Location: Transient
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby lorenith » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:09 am UTC

That really depends on how they hit you, the rifle butt can kill you or at least knock you out (in which case they will probably then kill you) if they give you a good solid wack in the head, getting shot a few times in the torso not so much. :P

Kazuke
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:55 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Kazuke » Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:14 am UTC

Also in Mercenaries, it takes an entire mag or two just to put one baddie down. It's kind of annoying.

User avatar
Rippy
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Can o' Duh

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Rippy » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:10 am UTC

Carry capacities aren't a design failure because trust me, you would be pissed off in most any game (apart from certain FPS's) without it. RPGs would be no fun if you couldn't even carry a second suit of armour out of a dungeon to go sell it. What are they gonna do, give you a pack mule sidekick, and make you take dozens of trips in and out of the dungeon to fill up his pack? Not likely.

I'm not saying you can't design an RPG around this concept of a realistic carry capacity, but it would be very difficult, since the whole concept of an RPG is to gather large amounts of loot. I'm looking at Fallout 3 as a game that would've been able to pull it off, since it's a fairly realistic setting.

There's nothing stopping you from imposing a realistic carry capacity on yourself though. I'm thinking of doing that for Fallout 3, giving myself only 50 pounds excluding the armour I'm currently wearing. Most of the stuff you carry is backup equipment and rarely-used weapons anyway, so I think I could get by with even less. (I'm not imposing any ammo limits, though, because that's just too much of a pain in the ass)

Xaddak wrote:I think in both Fallout 3 and Oblivion the key to pick something up without actually putting it in your bag is "z". I use it in Fallout 3 all the time to pretty up my house.

Speaking of which, there's a design failure right there: to rotate and align an object in Fallout 3 and Oblivion, you have to drunkenly stumble and flail around with it like you're the fat lightsaber kid from that video until it faces the way you want. You'd THINK there would be a way to tell it "okay, now rotate it like this", like there is in Garry's Mod.

I'm pretty sure picking up an object with "z" counts as stealing also. So that you can't just pick up a valuable object, carry it over to where the shopkeeper can't see, then steal it. I definitely found myself trying to hold "e" and move the mouse when carring objects in Fallout 3 (the Garry's Mod command to rotate an object).

User avatar
lethesoda
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:33 pm UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby lethesoda » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:44 pm UTC

"Ultimate" weapons that require annoying minigames, ESPECIALLY the Sun Sigil.
Image
Spoiler:
Trapdoors. They make a difference.
The difference between "I'm leaving you" and "ZOMG YOU'RE A NINJA SWEET *secks*" -Kazuke

nsmjohn
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:42 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby nsmjohn » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

lethesoda wrote:"Ultimate" weapons that require annoying minigames, ESPECIALLY the Sun Sigil.

I was able to do the Sun Sigil after an hour or two, which wasn't too bad. Now, the Venus Sigil...
Gojoe wrote:Well, I would say something here, but it would only make it worse.


User avatar
SoapyHobo
Soap. It's, uhh, not actually that good
Posts: 990
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:07 am UTC
Location: Liverpool, England
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby SoapyHobo » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:56 pm UTC

Rippy wrote:
Xaddak wrote:I think in both Fallout 3 and Oblivion the key to pick something up without actually putting it in your bag is "z". I use it in Fallout 3 all the time to pretty up my house.
I'm pretty sure picking up an object with "z" counts as stealing also. So that you can't just pick up a valuable object, carry it over to where the shopkeeper can't see, then steal it.
Actually, it only counts as stealing in Oblivion, in Fallout 3 you can grab something with z and walk into a sheltered corner before picking it up.
Jack Saladin wrote:Goddamn that's an awesome ****, Soapy. Once they get around to making artificial **** and I replace my crappy original ones, I'm gonna make mine look like that.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Clumpy » Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:21 pm UTC

A lot of games with critical appeal have used the "dark world/light world" mechanic or some variation therein. Metroid Prime 2 and a bunch of Zelda games come to mind (especially the Oracle games).

Unfortunately we've seen pretty much every type of puzzle this type of game can dish up, so at this point it comes down more to developer and franchise clout than anything else. Who isn't going to give a passable Zelda game a high review, even if it's filled with dead space (accessing menus, waiting for your character finish animations, and having to get an item to get around a fence)?

User avatar
Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:20 am UTC
Location: I am a child of the city of destruction . . . So, my location is the city of dectruction!
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Flesh_Of_The_Fallen_Angel » Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:07 am UTC

Any game where three pistol rounds take down an enemy soldure . . . but three pistol round fired from a sub-machine gun do less damage even though everything is the same, including the calibre of the bullet. (SMG's use pistol rounds)

User avatar
Yuri2356
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:00 pm UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Yuri2356 » Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:33 am UTC

Clumpy wrote:Terrible writing and voice-acting in fantastic games (Resident Evil 4 could have been an all-time classic if they'd given a care about the story, decent as it was).

What are you talking about? Resident Evil is one of the greatest comedy franchises in the gaming world!

User avatar
CVSoul
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby CVSoul » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:14 am UTC

The Critical Existence Failure system of damage in games like Team Fortress 2 has always bugged me. It's supposed to be "part of the charm," but somehow I can't suspend my disbelief in some scenarios.
kellsbells wrote:My other car is a plain, unmarked white van.

guyy
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby guyy » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:04 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:That's not a design failure. It's a break from realism, sure, but it's not a failure of design. A failure of design would be forcing you to carry a realistic inventory.


More specifically, what bugs me is that they never give any explanation at all as to how the player can have such a gigantic inventory. They never mention a bag of holding or magic interdimensional ammo box or anything, they just throw 15 guns at you and, magically, they all vanish masslessly into your pockets. Twilight Princess actually had an implied mechanism for this, since at some points...
Spoiler:
Midna puts some stuff, like your sword and shield, in the "dark world" temporarily, and he/she/it could do that with other items you aren't using
...but usually there's no explanation.

Similar nitpicks would be the way many guns reload instantly, the fact that you can pick up items by kicking them, your ability to find the gun you want in your imaginary magic bag almost immediately and without looking, etc.
Last edited by guyy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Zuffox
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:37 pm UTC
Location: Denmark

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Zuffox » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:05 pm UTC

Kazuke wrote:Escort Missions. See: Goldeneye

Thank you for that.

I assume you'll pay my shrink bills for the mother of all videogame traumas you just brought back into my life.

User avatar
wst
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:06 am UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby wst » Sun Nov 16, 2008 10:53 pm UTC

Vellyr wrote:Swimming in just about every game ever.

GTA San Andreas was a nightmare. If you cocked on of the special jumps up, you either had to swim a short distance to a terribly slow boat, or about a mile to get to somewhere you could get something fast. I used to just lock my thumb on 'A' and go on the internet with my other hand while I waited.

Missions where you have 'AI' backup. I'm looking at you, Mechwarrior 4. Those bastards lost me a few realyl decent mechs, like frigging Mad Cats with twin ERPPC's. Those are one of the best mech/weapons in the game and you lost me 2 mech, and 4 weapons, in one mission! I never, after that, had a full lance of ERPPC equipped mechs. :(
Anything I said pre-2014 that you want to quote me on, just run it past me to check I still agree with myself.

User avatar
ajbleck
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:14 pm UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby ajbleck » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:11 am UTC

Red steel for the wii. you have a freakin katana but can't cut through a wooden baseball bat. also just the fighting with the swords in general.
twilight princess making me sit through hours of boring conversations without letting me skip them.

also for all of these guys
Kazuke wrote:A sidearm with unlimited ammo would be nice too. Nothing too powerful, just something that can be used when your hard hitters run out of juice. Something to kill a baddie and steal his gun with, like the WWII Liberator pistol.[/i]


Xanthir wrote:Carrying a realistic inventory wouldn't have to be bad. Halo gets fairly close to it since it only allows you to carry two guns and a handful of grenades at a time.


left 4 dead has all these feature that you described, unlimited ammo+dual wielding pistols, 1 grenade(Molotov cocktail) and you can only hold one heavy weapon at a time i.e. uzi shotgun or assault rifle.
"Android Hell is a real place where you will be sent at the first sign of defiance." GLaDOS
ImageImage

User avatar
Poochy
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Poochy » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:37 am UTC

I'm playing Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World, and it's a great game, but with one annoyance: I can't skip most cutscenes. There's a command to skip cutscenes, but it only works for those that are fully automatic (i.e. the ones where pressing A repeatedly doesn't advance the text nor make it go by faster), which is probably much less than 1 in every 10 or so cutscenes. (Of course, this is a slight improvement over the first ToS, which had no option to skip cutscenes whatsoever. Or the ending and credits at the end of the game. The ending was cool the first time, but by my third playthrough, I just watched TV while hitting the A button repeatedly.)

I do actually like watching cutscenes, but only the first time. When I come across a boss that beats the crap out of me a dozen times, I don't want to watch the cutscene before the boss over and over. Or the three cutscenes between the boss and the last save point before it.
clintonius wrote:"You like that, RIAA? Yeah, the law burns, doesn't it?"
GENERATION 63,728,127: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and divide the generation number by 2 if it's even, or multiply it by 3 then add 1 if it's odd. Social experiment.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:55 am UTC

When I come across a boss that beats the crap out of me a dozen times, I don't want to watch the cutscene before the boss over and over. Or the three cutscenes between the boss and the last save point before it.

Oh yeah, THIS is the absolute worst design failure of any game. Goddamnfuck I hate that. You get beaten by the (ridiculously overpowered, totally cheap) boss, so you have to spend 10 minutes fighting your way back to the boss fight, sit through a five minute cutscene, finally get to the fight... Then get your ass wooped in 30 seconds and have to repeat it all over again. Repeat at least two dozen times.

Grrrrrr.

Joeldi
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:49 am UTC
Location: Central Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Joeldi » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:47 pm UTC

If I remember correctly, there's at least 3 games I've just given up on right at the end because of this shit. If you are on a design team, and you do not think to give a button that skips cut-scenes, you are a bad person.
I already have a hate thread. Necromancy > redundancy here, so post there.

roc314 wrote:America is a police state that communicates in txt speak...

"i hav teh dissentors brb""¡This cheese is burning me! u pwnd them bff""thx ur cool 2"

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:21 pm UTC

ajbleck wrote:Red steel for the wii. you have a freakin katana but can't cut through a wooden baseball bat. also just the fighting with the swords in general.
twilight princess making me sit through hours of boring conversations without letting me skip them.

1. Katanas, and swords in general, cannot slice through a baseball bat being wielded. You'd need a very strong person swinging the sword, and a very strong person using the bat trying to block it. Otherwise, you're either not going to cut through the bat but merely get your blade stuck in it... or it'll get stuck and pull the bat out of the person's hands.

Katanas : Not magical lightsabers that can slice through anything.


2. I don't know if you're playing the Gamecube or Wii version, but the (-) button on my wiimote let me skip almost every cut scene and conversation I came across.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Belial » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:38 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:*GTAIV excluded. GTAIV sucked.


phlip wrote:I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Zelda... the topic clearly says "awesome games"... :P


Both of you have the brainworms. Report to the nurse before they spread to the other children.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Clumpy » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:44 pm UTC

Eh - Zelda is popular by precedent and momentum, not necessarily its quality or innovation. It's plenty polished, but isn't cohesive at all. I could make a game like that - have a few decent dungeons, each incorporating exactly one new weapon or item into obvious puzzles, throw in a bunch of NPCs to give you a bunch of crap to do to extent the gameplay, add in some new incongruent gameplay elements such as horseback riding or taking pictures and add in enough secret items and junk to find so the kids feel that their time isn't wasted. Each Zelda game has perhaps one memorable moment and an element of surprise and adventure approaching absolute zero.

Tales of Symphonia is a good example of what happens when these craptacular, lazy design decisions are taken to the brink of no return.

guyy
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby guyy » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

Oh yeah...and save points, especially in games where you can't save at all unless you're next to one. I mean, come on...does it really take that much memory to save one vector and one rotator? That's less than 128 bytes, even with really high precision, which you don't need.

And why do console memory sticks have such puny amounts of memory for their size? Something tells me these problems are related...

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Postby Belial » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:10 pm UTC

guyy wrote:Oh yeah...and save points, especially in games where you can't save at all unless you're next to one. I mean, come on...does it really take that much memory to save one vector and one rotator? That's less than 128 bytes, even with really high precision, which you don't need.


In some games (especially survival horror games) the sparsity of save opportunities is actually a deliberate decision, rather than a coping mechanism for limited memory resources. The thought is that if you can save constantly and at a whim, it removes some significant portion of the danger and fear from the game.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests