Game pet peeves

User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:41 pm

The real problem isnt in the names and colors however,its in their behavior.If the toad and demon toad both have the same attacks,only the demon toad has more hp and damage,thats bad.But if the demon toad instead had a different attack,and maybe some special ability(summon perhaps),thats much better.

For example,in kings bounty there are priesnt and inquisitors,that look basically the same,only one is red the other is blue.However,while the blue one is just a shooter with a bless spell thats moderately useful,the red one has resurrection and rage boosting spell,making it a radically different unit in how its used.There are plenty of such cases in the game,but the plethora of abilities each unit has makes them all extremely different,even when they are visually almost identical.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Thomas » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:45 pm

I don't mind More HP palette swaps as long as they're used sparingly. (And filtered in so at first they're epic struggles and by the end they're common enemies). It's nice for the game to explicitly point out how much you've levelled up every now and then. But at the same time you want most of your encounters to be against interesting enemies with interesting attack patterns
Ninety-Three

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ninety-Three » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:30 pm

Alchemy systems where crafting a potion requires an empty bottle, but drinking a potion does not produce a bottle. It's not just the logical question of where the bottle goes, it turns into an obnoxious resource-management exercise where your ability to craft potions is often limited by the number of empty bottles you have. The modern Fallout games are also guilty of this with their handling of beverages.

I have to wonder how this sort of thing comes about. Do game designers think this annoying nonsense is an acceptable way to balance alchemy, or is it a matter of crafting systems being tacked on rather than designed along with the rest of the alchemy system, so that the designers never realize they should be returning crafted bottles?
User avatar
McNutcase
Location: Nova Albion
Contact:

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby McNutcase » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:49 pm

Ninety-Three wrote:Alchemy systems where crafting a potion requires an empty bottle, but drinking a potion does not produce a bottle. It's not just the logical question of where the bottle goes, it turns into an obnoxious resource-management exercise where your ability to craft potions is often limited by the number of empty bottles you have. The modern Fallout games are also guilty of this with their handling of beverages.

I have to wonder how this sort of thing comes about. Do game designers think this annoying nonsense is an acceptable way to balance alchemy, or is it a matter of crafting systems being tacked on rather than designed along with the rest of the alchemy system, so that the designers never realize they should be returning crafted bottles?

What might be nice is a distinction between empty bottles and used bottles, so that it's clear that you're washing out the used ones. D&D, which like it or not is the major influence on CRPG mechanics, used to have some thoroughly interesting consequences for mixing potions, everything from "neither one works" to "inconveniently large explosion", which was always great when you realized the rules said that drinking multiple potions in quick succession counted as mixing them (and boy howdy would Reginald Cuftbert have fun with THAT in effect). It's not hard to get from that to "residue is a serious problem, you need a well equipped bench to properly clean out used bottles". Which, of course, turns into "wow, this shit is a lot to keep track of, let's just remove the potion mixing rules and the separate kinds of empty", and doesn't continue as far as "drinking a potion creates an empty bottle" or "let's just not bother keeping track of bottles".
User avatar
Humanoid

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Humanoid » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:03 am

The potions come in plastic bottles that aren't BPA-free, and so washing and reusing them is bad for your health.
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby The Rocketeer » Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:30 am

Y'all have this funny idea that potions are drank, and that there's a bottle left over. Potions coagulate into a jelly-like substance that fuses with the glass, and are eaten, bottle and all.

New Vegas' containers aren't like that, though. Drinking a cup of Black Coffee may leave a reusable mug, but often prompts a notification that the mug shatters after drinking the contents; I extrapolate this inexplicable destruction to every other variety of beverage consumed by the Courier. Clearly, this isn't a property of the bottles themselves, otherwise no empty bottles would exist. Thus, I surmise that the player character, and only the player character, is either personally or paranormally incapable of drinking the contents of a container without breaking, ruining, annihilating, or otherwise rendering unserviceable the concomitant container, be it a bottle, mug, jar, jug, or thermos.

The only container to which this seems not to apply is the Vault 13 Canteen, which is not utilized like a normal beverage. I propose that the Courier, though infallible in destroying glass and plastic containers, has more trouble consistently breaking the tougher ceramic mugs and is incapable of breaking the metal canteen at all. Or that maybe the canteen, and some of the coffee, isn't utilized per os...
Ninety-Three

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ninety-Three » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:23 am

Wow, I didn't know about black coffee. Now I'm even more confused. Obsidian had an empty sarsaparilla bottle asset, they're scattered goddamn everywhere, drinking Sass gives you a bottle cap, but they somehow forgot about the bottle itself? I could maybe see that happening if Obsidian were staffed entirely by space aliens, but the coffee proves that they have at least some understanding of the concept of reusable containers, so what's going on?

And don't forget, Sunny Smiles' tutorial quest goes out of its way to show that those Sass bottles are bulletproof. It would make more sense if the Courier was eating the things.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:46 am

Courier is actually a devout worshiper of thor,and thus breaks every container she drinks from.

Image
User avatar
John

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby John » Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:51 am

So you're playing a game. Your character gets new and important information, which is implied if not outright stated to require immediate action--except that it really doesn't. As long as you fail to act on that information you can still do all the optional content you like with no penalty or repercussion . . . and so help me, I do. I do it every single time. I'm a bad role-player, I guess.

One game I have always appreciated for not doing this sort of thing is the Neverwinter Nights expansion Hordes of the Underdark. The Valsharess is about to attack the last independent city in the Underdark and you are given four quests to turn the tide of the war against her. You can do the quests in any order you like. But the Valsharess' army attacks after you return to the city after you complete your third quest and you never get the chance to do a fourth. Hey, when you arrived in the Underdark the NPCs straight up told you that she could attack at any time and they meant it. (Okay, technically, there is a way to do all four, since the Valsharess' attack only triggers when you go back to the city after completing your third quest. But never mind that. You are incredibly unlikely to discover it on your first playthrough.)
Last edited by John on Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lachlan the Sane
Location: I come from the land down under, where women blow and men chunder

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Lachlan the Sane » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:21 am

John wrote:So you're playing a game. Your character gets new and important information, which is implied if not outright stated to require immediate action--except that it really doesn't. As long as you fail to act on that information you can still do all the optional content you like with penalty or repercussion . . . and so help me, I do. I do it every single time. I'm a bad role-player, I guess.

One game I have always appreciated for not doing this sort of thing is the Neverwinter Nights expansion Hordes of the Underdark. The Valsharess is about to attack the last independent city in the Underdark and you are given four quests to turn the tide of the war against her. You can do the quests in any order you like. But the Valsharess' army attacks after you return to the city after you complete your third quest and you never get the chance to do a fourth. Hey, when you arrived in the Underdark the NPCs straight up told you that she could attack at any time and they meant it. (Okay, technically, there is a way to do all four, since the Valsharess' attack only triggers when you go back to the city after completing your third quest. But never mind that. You are incredibly unlikely to discover it on your first playthrough.)

So I'm playing Mass Effect 1 at the moment, and man those Salarians must have been waiting on Virmire for months at this point with all the sidequesting I've been doing...
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Thomas » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:53 pm

I've noticed Bioware seem to be finally getting wise to this problem. Dragon Age: Inquisition spent a lot more time explaining why the main missions weren't urgent, which I really appreciated.

It's really really widespread in open world games. I'd prefer them to pick plots where doing the sidequests first makes sense, but failing that, just not having main missions that explicitly highlight their urgency would be nice. Deus Ex: Mankind keeps bugging you that you need to do main missions right now but also permanently loses sidequests if you do the main missions too quickly
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ringwraith » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:36 pm

At least Dues Ex: Managing Director warns you about sidequests failing if you progress the main plot.
User avatar
Kelerak

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Kelerak » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:43 pm

I love how Caesar's Legion never moves to take Hoover Dam until you talk to House/Yes Man/Caesar/Lee Oliver.
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Retsam » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:50 pm

I actually kind of hate when videogames go out of their way to justify video game tropes. It doesn't bother me when I ignore the urgent main quest to do a bunch of side-quests, or when I walk into random strangers houses and loot them of their valuables, or the fact that monsters just so happen to be getting stronger in the exact direction I have to be traveling, or whatever: I recognize that as being part of the artifice of the game, and I don't try to fit that into the game's story and world.

So to me, having the game acknowledge or justify that stuff is at best, unnecessary, and at worst really awkward. The worst offender I can think of (admittedly, also the freshest in my mind) is that Lost Odyssey has had several NPCs say things like "oh yeah, feel free to take all the random stuff you find lying around, nobody cares about it". It actually ends up breaking my suspension of disbelief more than if they had just ignored it, since having a character acknowledge my apparent kleptomania forces me to try to reconcile it with the game's world.
User avatar
John

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby John » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:24 pm

To be clear, I like it when a game tells me, say, "if you do this plot-related thing you will no longer be able to do things unrelated to the plot". That sort of thing is fine, useful, and good. Helpful, even. It's when a game tells me that there's an emergency somewhere and then lets me ignore the emergency without consequences that I get a little dispirited. If it's really an emergency, shouldn't it get worse the longer I ignore it?
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Thomas » Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:46 pm

When done properly, it's not justifying a trope, it's avoiding the problem. Not having people talk about a timer on the main mission when there isn't a main mission wouldn't make anyone sit up and notice, it's just not having the story do one thing whilst encouraging the player to do the opposite. Dragon Age: Inquisition didn't go around saying "Do this important thing, but I don't mind if you get lost on the way *wink*". It was "They'll be consolidating their forces, we should be prepared for their return". I noticed, because the trope really really bugs me when I'm trying even minor roleplaying and I appreciated DA:I arranging the story to fit it's own gamestyle.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby 4th Dimension » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:37 pm

Ringwraith wrote:I think it's a vanish-mid-combat-to-pop-up-next-to-target-enemy kind of thing.

Now that you mention them I don't like that type of stealth skill in RPG. It basically invalidates the positioning and tanking and tactics since you can not really prevent the enemy from using it on your squishyer characters and you will notice the rogue only AFTER he has sharked you or your squishy mage in the back dealing backstab+sneak attack damage.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Thomas » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:48 pm

Am I missing where that quote is from sorry?

Edit: Never mind realised its from the Tyranny thread. I also don't like the enemy to have that ability but I think its normally a must for stealth classes for the player. Lots of games take their stealth classes from pen & paper but its _much_ less useful in the fixed encounters of something like kotor
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sat Nov 19, 2016 9:27 pm

Its not a stealth skill,its just a random blink.*poof* and the enemy is suddenly right next to your mage.Quite annoying.

The "vanish from battle,heal a bit,then reappear later" is a different skill,and while it messes up your targeting and planning,at least lets you resume them once the foe reappears.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby 4th Dimension » Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:58 pm

Yes, what annoys me is the blinking aspect. The enemy does not traverse the space betwen themselves and the target but basically teleport and no matter what I have between them and the target they will not be interrupted.
I'm in general opposed to giving AI stealth unless we have clear ways to counter stealth.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:24 am

I dont mind them having stealth.I have stealth,and I use it for sneak attacks.If they use it for sneak attacking,that would be fine.But this is mid combat blinking.Thats just stupid.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby 4th Dimension » Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:50 am

Only if there is a way to break them out of stealth before they reach their target. Otherwise they might as well simplify it and make ti a blink because functionally between blink and undetectable stealth there is not much difference.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Trix2000 » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:12 pm

What if, instead of a straight teleport, it's just a very fast dash instead? Would that be more or less acceptable? Would that necessitate magic?
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:17 pm

Trix2000 wrote:What if, instead of a straight teleport, it's just a very fast dash instead? Would that be more or less acceptable? Would that necessitate magic?


If the dash can be stopped by having meat in front of it,then no.
User avatar
Kelerak

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Kelerak » Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:47 pm

I hate when shotguns don't feel powerful enough.

I recently finished Quake, and then loaded up Brutal Doom, and the difference was night and day. Quake's shotgun may as well be a peashooter, since it doesn't sound or feel powerful enough to justify its existence as a shotgun. Even at close range, the shotgun in Quake doesn't do nearly enough damage to feel correct. Contrast with Brutal Doom, where the shotgun at close range completely eviscerates an enemy, and it feels EXCELLENT.

If not powerful, at least make them be able to do knockback damage. Seriously.

Return to “Videogames”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest