Page 3 of 8

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:09 pm UTC
by Clumpy
Belial wrote:
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.


Yeah. Games that let you save everywhere (especially the quicksave on the computer) are actually less enjoyable because they take away consequences and force OCD types like me to relive every moment again and again until it goes perfectly.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:32 pm UTC
by jerdak
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.


That's assuming you are playing a standard FPS or equally memory light game. Something like Fallout 3 (or any other complex RPG) has to save an entire table of item locations, npc data, world data, quest data, dialog data, etc. That's a sizable portion of information. Granted my example is a game that lets your save whenever. Granted most systems have a decently sized HDD (I'm not sure what the Wii has) and in those cases it's hard to understand a lack of saving. Unless it's as Belial says:

Belial wrote: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.


I agree. Some games it makes sense to have limited save points. I would argue that gamers nowadays should be required to go back and play some old NES games. When you are limited to 3 lives and a couple of continues you start to appreciate even sparse save points. If NES taught me anything it was how to control my temper at inanimate objects. It's funny how you start to hate your machine when things don't go well.

Don't suppose we could rename this topic "critically acclaimed" games? My vote for design failure is a lack of innovation in sequels. I'm looking at you Halo. Sometimes I wish developers would listen a little bit more to their user base and that the powers that be (IE those with money) would be willing to let the release date slip in order to release a proper sequel instead of a rehash. In the case of Halo I hated the repetitive level designs and blah textures associated with all 3 games.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:35 pm UTC
by phlip
Belial wrote:
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.

I bought Twilight Princess, mostly for the Wii Homebrew thing, but partly to see what this Zelda thing is all about.

Two hours into the game, and I've done a fishing minigame, two herding minigames, and a "Warning: X is a bad idea, and you really shouldn't do it. If you don't do X, the story won't let you do anything else. My god, why did you do X? Everything is broken now, and it's all your fault" plot point. My major goal in life is to deliver a parcel to some castle, and I haven't even taken one step towards achieving that. And then I see that I haven't even gotten past the brief two-page intro to the storyline given in the manual.

So then I leave the game for a while, and play something actually fun. But then my curiosity gets the better of me and I go back to it, see if it actually picks up once I'm out of the two-page intro and into the actual game... which, by chance, happens straight away, I'd happened to give up right before it happened. So now I play through the actual game, and after ages, I'm about halfway through the game... or at least, halfway towards what appears at the moment to be the goal... and I'm still waiting for something to happen in the storyline that's interesting enough for me to actually care. And the gameplay wasn't much better, even ignoring the story... Oh, I have to run from one side of this town to the other, and cut bad guys with a sword. How unique and different from everything else in the game so far. Oh, yay, another hide-and-seek game with those invisible electric bug things. Those are always fun.

So tell me... did I just pick the bad apple of the series? Or are they all like this, but somehow popular regardless?

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:52 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Well.. before the halfway point of the game, you're already done forever with the "Find the hidden bugs" mechanic.... just thought I'd throw that out.

It kinda depends on what you're looking for in a game. The Zelda series never has really been about doing sidequests and world immersion. It's been more of a platformer with choices. More or less.

It's good at what it does, but if you're not a fan of what it does, you won't care for it.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:58 pm UTC
by phlip
SecondTalon wrote:Well.. before the halfway point of the game, you're already done forever with the "Find the hidden bugs" mechanic.... just thought I'd throw that out.

Well, as I said, halfway to the goals I currently know about... resuscitating these four god things (the "find the hidden bugs" thing), and collecting these 3 black mask things from the boss battles for my slave driver. Of which I got to 2 and 2. At least, that's what I remember anyways... it's been a while since I stopped playing it.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:37 pm UTC
by Edawan
When you arrive at the final boss of the game and he completely pwns you, but you can't go back to gain more stuff / levels because you saved at a point just before the fight where it's not allowed.

This happened to me in Golden Sun, which is an excellent game until the final boss' final form.


Actually that's not nitpicking. This is a major design failure.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:44 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of time was annoying at the end. Everything beforehand is too easy, but the final boss is one-shotting my little dudes. But at least with that I can run all the way back to town and restock.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:59 pm UTC
by Clumpy
Edawan, you pretty much have to buff yourself with Ivan's and Garet's stuff to be able to survive that guy. It's not particularly difficult if you do so and don't drain your djinn out, killing your stats.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:36 pm UTC
by Aeronaut
Clumpy wrote:Edawan, you pretty much have to buff yourself with Ivan's and Garet's stuff to be able to survive that guy. It's not particularly difficult if you do so and don't drain your djinn out, killing your stats.

I don't think the stats were an issue in his case- I believe he's referring to the fact that you are physically able to save your game once you've jumped down the little slide and have taken the elevator up to the top of the lighthouse, essentially a "point of no return" (the elevator doesn't/cannot go back down). I agree with him in that this is a major design flaw- I've actually experienced this issue myself.

As for my own personal nitpicking, I'd nominate Nintendo's Wi-Fi Connection service as a design flaw in and of itself. Honestly, even though the service is free, I feel as though Nintendo could be doing a whole lot more to keep cheaters off of it. I can't say I've played a single DS game in which the "random" online feature isn't filled with people that use cheating devices to gain unfair advantages.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:06 pm UTC
by Clumpy
Aeronaut wrote:
Clumpy wrote:Edawan, you pretty much have to buff yourself with Ivan's and Garet's stuff to be able to survive that guy. It's not particularly difficult if you do so and don't drain your djinn out, killing your stats.

I don't think the stats were an issue in his case- I believe he's referring to the fact that you are physically able to save your game once you've jumped down the little slide and have taken the elevator up to the top of the lighthouse, essentially a "point of no return" (the elevator doesn't/cannot go back down). I agree with him in that this is a major design flaw- I've actually experienced this issue myself.


Oh, right - good catch. Yeah, that type of design is inexcusable.

Can I nominate "online play" in general? I've never played a good game with strangers online in anything that gives users any control over the experience. Is there a way to play a casual game against somebody who doesn't exploit every possible loophole to win and uses various shady methods (i.e. can I "have fun" playing online)? I don't play online games very often, but only games with random matchmaking like Halo 2 that don't allow people to change settings have brought good experiences. User-generated maps always suck, mods nearly always suck, and the elite players who play these games all day and practice every technique suck unless random matchmaking protects you from their jackassery.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:31 pm UTC
by Joeldi
Edawan wrote:When you arrive at the final boss of the game and he completely pwns you, but you can't go back to gain more stuff / levels because you saved at a point just before the fight where it's not allowed.

This happened to me in Golden Sun, which is an excellent game until the final boss' final form.

Actually that's not nitpicking. This is a major design failure.


Something similar happened to me in Red Faction, this time the fault of a quicksave mechanism. I went up a lift, went exploring, quick-saved. "OH MY GOD, COME BACK DOWN, WE'RE BEING ATTACKED" Tried to get back down...it was game over before I was anywhere near where I needed to be over and over again.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:00 am UTC
by Mr. Beck
Joeldi wrote:
Edawan wrote:When you arrive at the final boss of the game and he completely pwns you, but you can't go back to gain more stuff / levels because you saved at a point just before the fight where it's not allowed.

This happened to me in Golden Sun, which is an excellent game until the final boss' final form.

Actually that's not nitpicking. This is a major design failure.


Something similar happened to me in Red Faction, this time the fault of a quicksave mechanism. I went up a lift, went exploring, quick-saved. "OH MY GOD, COME BACK DOWN, WE'RE BEING ATTACKED" Tried to get back down...it was game over before I was anywhere near where I needed to be over and over again.

Actually, any game that does not offer quicksave backups has a design flaw. I highly laud Max Payne in this regard- it saved my sanity quite a few times.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:48 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
Anything with infinitely re-spawning enemies.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:12 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Anything with enemies that never respawn (Dungeon Siege 1, somewhat 2)

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:04 pm UTC
by Edawan
Jebobek wrote:Anything with enemies that never respawn (Dungeon Siege 1, somewhat 2)
Why that ? I can't see why you'd want respawns in a single player game...

Aeronaut wrote:I believe he's referring to the fact that you are physically able to save your game once you've jumped down the little slide and have taken the elevator up to the top of the lighthouse, essentially a "point of no return" (the elevator doesn't/cannot go back down). I agree with him in that this is a major design flaw- I've actually experienced this issue myself.
Exactly.
But anyway I wouldn't go back to it. That was years ago and I was even surprised some people remembered specifics of that game. ('cause I don't)

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
by Yuri2356
Grinding.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:21 pm UTC
by Xaddak
Yuri2356 wrote:Grinding.


This is why I don't play WoW anymore.

Well, among other reasons. This isn't the thread to get into that.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:26 pm UTC
by Jebobek
Grinding out of necessity, rather than just to be uber. I'll go back to my Pokemon: Mystery Dungeon example. If I could not go back and make my little guys get stronger, or at least purchase more items to keep them alive, I'd never get back to beating the game. Dungeon Siege was interesting because if you leveled the guys the wrong way, and you want to level up some other characters in the same game, you either could not, or had a really hard time because the respawn was not there (game 1) or really dismal (game 2). I consider it a nitpicky design failure in otherwise awesome(ish) games.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:02 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
SlyReaper wrote:Anything with infinitely re-spawning enemies.
Jebobek wrote:Anything with enemies that never respawn (Dungeon Siege 1, somewhat 2)
Edawan wrote:Why that ? I can't see why you'd want respawns in a single player game...

Way I see it...

In your action games (FPS, for example) you don't want infinite respawn. You want to know that the safe area you just made is just that - safe. That you don't have to worry about a couple of goons appearing from nowhere and WTFPWNING your ass while you're taking a moment to catch your breath and plan out just how you're going to get through the next room with only 18 life, 23 armor, and only 42 rounds spread out among three guns that take 2 seconds to swap (and longer to reload)

In your Adventure RPG style games... especially ones with random magic loot sometimes, or games with NPCs selling god-like artifacts that cost an arm and a leg during the first dungeon but if you can afford them somehow, man oh man the power.... those you do want respawning enemies, to grind up your experience (if you want..it should never be required to beat the boss) and get you extra cash and possibly rare item drops. Personally, I want to explore the dungeon fully, map the whole thing out, and use the experience gathered during that process to beat the boss (as a good fight, not a "I walk over it like it's not even there") then move on to the next place. Some people want to be strong enough so that they just glare at the boss and it explodes in to fire.. and the fire explodes into more fire. Fair enough, that's their problem, not mine.

Point being - if you get experience and bonus cookies or whatever for killing enemies, you should have the option, if you chose, to fight respawning monsters. If enemies are essentially reflex targets and exercises in ammo conservation, there should not be respawning enemies..... unless it's a Zombie Simulator. Those always need respawning monsters - but then again, they're more exercises in ammo conservation and getting from point A to point B. The zombies should be essentially mobile, removable roadblocks that beat the stuffing out of you.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:17 pm UTC
by Endless Mike
Clumpy wrote:Can I nominate "online play" in general? I've never played a good game with strangers online in anything that gives users any control over the experience. Is there a way to play a casual game against somebody who doesn't exploit every possible loophole to win and uses various shady methods (i.e. can I "have fun" playing online)? I don't play online games very often, but only games with random matchmaking like Halo 2 that don't allow people to change settings have brought good experiences. User-generated maps always suck, mods nearly always suck, and the elite players who play these games all day and practice every technique suck unless random matchmaking protects you from their jackassery.

It's easy: play coop games instead of competitive games, or even team-based competitive games. You get the fun of the game with the interaction of a real person. It's why I'm enjoying the hell out of Left 4 Dead despite being terrible at it and have never *really* enjoyed any other online shooters.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:33 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
An instanced dungeon in an MMORPG is basically a co-op game. You and a group of people are attempting to make it through something together.

So... yeah, you can take the competition out, but people suck no matter what you do.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:40 pm UTC
by Endless Mike
Yeah, but I wouldn't put MMORPGs on my list of "awesome games" ever.

Re: Most annoying level themes

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:40 pm UTC
by Xaddak
Clumpy wrote:I mean, think of everything they could have done with the new Animal Crossing! Lazy, lazy bastids.


I'll play Animal Crossing again when they take a page from Oblivion's book and include a "wait" feature to pass the time.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:46 pm UTC
by Clumpy
Yeah. Trying to play co-op games with people online can be like trying to reason with a lunatic howler monkey. They're running all over the place doing things that don't make sense and you can't reason with them.

Re: Most annoying level themes

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:48 pm UTC
by Clumpy
I completely forgot about games that make you do things like drain lakes! I hate that stuff!

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:57 pm UTC
by Jebobek
ST on Respawns: Yep thats just about right, regarding when they should or should not come back.

On CO-OP: I would not consider "not being able to control one of your buddies in an online CO-OP" a "design failure" but a "design intent." However, I fully support people's rights to nitpick it regardless, especially if you're CO-OPing with folks you don't want to. What is it called, Omni Gaming? Where you just play with the same people you know for a while in different games? I tend to persue that, and have alot more fun even if somoene's not doing exactly what I want them to do. Then you can joke around with them later, but no feelings are hurt, and no one gets booted for being bad. You don't run into the downward spiral of suck like ST defined a bit ago.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:23 pm UTC
by JayDee
SecondTalon wrote:In your action games (FPS, for example) you don't want infinite respawn. You want to know that the safe area you just made is just that - safe.
Although I can think of games that make the design choice to have enemies never stop respawning, specifically so that you don't feel safe. System Shock (and sequel) wouldn't be the same without it.

Re: Most annoying level themes

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:53 am UTC
by Nifar
The damn oil field stage from Sonic The Hedgehog 2. Unlike water in the rest of the game, oil killed you on contact, and at points was almost impossible to avoid. Also, the battle with Robotnik in the level before that, where he's in a flame-throwing tank and you're standing on grass that can catch fire, can get annoying fast.

Re: Most annoying level themes

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:07 am UTC
by Aeronaut
Well, in all the games I've ever played, the only type of level I've come to dislike would have to be the variety that overuses a game mechanic that's never and/or rarely seen elsewhere in a game.

Twilight Princess was pretty horrible about this-
Spoiler:
the Spinner dungeon comes to mind, for instance, as one of the most blatant overuses of a mechanic that's almost never used elsewhere in the entire game. You cannot, for the most part, put the Spinner to good use outside of that dungeon.


Other games include Super Mario Galaxy (the ball-rolling levels have already been mentioned here) and, of course, any game in which a key item that's only used once stays with you for the entire game despite the fact that you never, ever use it again. Tales series, I'm looking at you.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:27 am UTC
by SecondTalon
JayDee wrote:Although I can think of games that make the design choice to have enemies never stop respawning, specifically so that you don't feel safe. System Shock (and sequel) wouldn't be the same without it.

True.. but I consider both of those more of Roleplaying Games, or Horror Games than I do First Person Shooters.

But I was speaking in generalities. A game that's supposed to be horror themed AND combat-based that doesn't have monsters leaping out of supposedly safe areas is kinda failing at the horror part. And relying on the same "Open a door, kill the baddies, take three steps, kill the baddies that just teleported in" mechanic doesn't count, Doom3.

System Shock 2 succeeded in this, even though I did see monsters spawn a few times which was kinda immersion breaking. I don't recall monsters in System Shock 1 respawning all that often, outside of maybe some creature generators at one part that you could shut down.. but I may be mistaken about that. I think creatures respawned when you switched levels.

Re: Most annoying level themes

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:05 am UTC
by AKAnotu
Vehicle sections with crappy controls. 'Nuff said.

This isn't really a theme, per se, but levels that are too long. Especially in FPS'. I realize you have to make the game longer, but don't do that by throwing another five encounters between me and my next objective. Do that by giving me another objective. If you do throw in random firefights, make them original/epic. Don't just make a large room with some nondescript crates and around five goons. What is that room's purpose, anyways? I wasn't aware this building was renting out space for a warehouse.


EDIT: Wrong thread. Meant to post it in the level theme one. Both threads are similar, though. Whatever.
Double edit: Talon moved it. Nvm.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:16 am UTC
by Aikanaro
Thing in Zelda games that is REALLY driving me nuts lately:

The fact that EVERY damn shop of COURSE sells bombs and arrows, but the devices needed to USE this ammo can only be found in deep, dark dungeons of doom. How the hell do the bomb/arrow makers stay in business? Now, I'm fine if there's a PLOT event in town where supplies for making bows, etc., are running low....but if a BOW is such a legendary item that only ONE of it exists in the world, why is it so common for people to sell arrows? I know, I know, suspension of disbelief....but this is REALLY getting old....

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:00 am UTC
by Numzane
I find it irritating when you run around the map looking for random objects to craft some recipe, and then after much effort you manage to find all of the pieces and put the weapon together, only to find that the thing you've made is worse than whatever weapon you can find lying around. If you have to expend that much energy trying to make the thing it should be at least somewhat better than whatever you can find with no effort at all.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:08 am UTC
by Jack Saladin
... Thinking of Fallout 3?

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:15 am UTC
by Numzane
Heh, yup.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:40 pm UTC
by SJ Zero
Games without an autosave feature. I didn't realise how important it is until I started playing Deus Ex and Fallout and if you die in either of them, there's no coming back unless you saved.

I hate playing through a huge section of game again because I was immersed in it and forgot to break continuity to fiddle around in the menu. Deus Ex and Fallout both took me ages to get into because I had to get back into that mechanic.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:15 pm UTC
by Jebobek
SJ Zero wrote:Games without an autosave feature. I didn't realise how important it is until I started playing Deus Ex and Fallout and if you die in either of them, there's no coming back unless you saved.

I hate playing through a huge section of game again because I was immersed in it and forgot to break continuity to fiddle around in the menu. Deus Ex and Fallout both took me ages to get into because I had to get back into that mechanic.
Fallout: Its rough to remember sometimes, but the F5 key for quicksaving is pretty handy. If you get into the habit of hitting that before a skirmish flares up, you'll feel alot better about the game, because you won't be consulting a menu to ensure that you're not screwed. Remember (im talking to the general public btw) that autosaving is what the computer does in that game when you go through a door or fast-travel, and is not as reliable as quicksaving.

F9 quickloads I believe. Most people's fingers don't get close to that key, but be careful if yours does, because it'll throw you back into the last quicksave immediately. You can change it if you're worried, but its in a pretty good location as is. Quickloading is good for hitting right when you die, so that you don't have to watch the whole death scene. Does not sound like much, but when you're goofing around and die over and over, its pretty handy.

Some folks don't know about hotkeys in Fallout, so... If you go into the inventory, hit 1-9, then click on an item, you'll hotkey it (something like that, you'll figure it out). Its good for popping stimpacks out in the field to help with the immersion.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:58 pm UTC
by ArchangelShrike
Jebobek wrote:
SJ Zero wrote:Games without an autosave feature. I didn't realise how important it is until I started playing Deus Ex and Fallout and if you die in either of them, there's no coming back unless you saved.

I hate playing through a huge section of game again because I was immersed in it and forgot to break continuity to fiddle around in the menu. Deus Ex and Fallout both took me ages to get into because I had to get back into that mechanic.
Fallout: Its rough to remember sometimes, but the F5 key for quicksaving is pretty handy. If you get into the habit of hitting that before a skirmish flares up, you'll feel alot better about the game, because you won't be consulting a menu to ensure that you're not screwed. Remember (im talking to the general public btw) that autosaving is what the computer does in that game when you go through a door or fast-travel, and is not as reliable as quicksaving.

F9 quickloads I believe. Most people's fingers don't get close to that key, but be careful if yours does, because it'll throw you back into the last quicksave immediately. You can change it if you're worried, but its in a pretty good location as is. Quickloading is good for hitting right when you die, so that you don't have to watch the whole death scene. Does not sound like much, but when you're goofing around and die over and over, its pretty handy.

Some folks don't know about hotkeys in Fallout, so... If you go into the inventory, hit 1-9, then click on an item, you'll hotkey it (something like that, you'll figure it out). Its good for popping stimpacks out in the field to help with the immersion.


Unless you blindly forget which button you wanted to press, and hit the quickload right after a big battle/boss fight, as has happened lots of times... Or quicksave after you pass a point of no return. Menus are good at reducing these chances.

On the infinitely/no respawn line, X-COM. You've maxed out the rank charts but still have new recruits, you're being attacked by battleships constantly, and on the first turn your rookies exit the ship only to see a mind-controling/uber-killer enemy that they can't hit. The the uber-killer either controls your men and throws grenades to clear out your ship, or simply levels everyone with their fly-by-wire rocket launcher.

In fact, that's a flaw in and of itself - I've been supposedly given the best trained men and women on the planet, straight out of special forces, and they can't hit the broad side of a barn with a rocket? Any and all strategical games like that.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:00 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
ArchangelShrike wrote:On the infinitely/no respawn line, X-COM. You've maxed out the rank charts but still have new recruits, you're being attacked by battleships constantly, and on the first turn your rookies exit the ship only to see a mind-controling/uber-killer enemy that they can't hit. The the uber-killer either controls your men and throws grenades to clear out your ship, or simply levels everyone with their fly-by-wire rocket launcher.

In fact, that's a flaw in and of itself - I've been supposedly given the best trained men and women on the planet, straight out of special forces, and they can't hit the broad side of a barn with a rocket? Any and all strategical games like that.
While at the beginning of the game being able to hit almost any target reliably takes away some of the fear, perhaps as the game progresses, the base level of the recruits needs to rise as well, so that a new recruit at the endgame is about as skilled as a troop that's been on ten or more missions.
chart.JPG

That'd likely solve the problem somewhat, as late-stage fresh recruits would be far more skilled and less likely to freak out and blow up your own squad.

Re: Nitpicky design failures in awesome games

Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:13 pm UTC
by ArchangelShrike
Doesn't change the fact that while having full time units and aiming a rocket launcher at a alien standing next to a building the rookie will invariably miss. Then the alien will walk around and notice my ranking officer (providing cover) and shoot him dead, leaving me with a squad of hopeless rookies to save the planet. Also, you need a third line to show the ability of the aliens, right between the two current lines.

Yet I've uninstalled and reinstalled that game so many times, I could probably find the manual lying around if I looked hard enough...