Are there any common video game elements you wish would disappear?

[Morty]

It's a thought that occured to me recently. There are various elements in video games we all take for granted. However, are they really good, or are we just used to them? To start off, there are two classical features I'm increasingly unhappy with:
- Inventory system in RPGs. It wasn't until playing Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2 that I realized that I hate the inventory system used by most RPGs. Sifting through tons of items, most of which you'll sell anyway - never mind how unrealistic it is - provides gameplay with absolutely nothing and detracts from the actually fun parts.
- Health bar/mana bar, again in RPGs. Can't we really come up with any other ways of tracking health and magical/psychic/whatever energy? It's always the red bar, the blue bar, and potions in corresponding colours. It's different from the first element in that I can't really think of an RPG game that does away with both of them.

[Toastkart]

Leveling - I wouldn't go so far as to say that leveling should be done away with entirely, but I do think it could do with a fresh approach. Character customization and power growth would, I think, be tricky to do without some sort of leveling. Mass Effect 2 did this pretty well, I think, because your actual level didn't mean much for any given mission (barring new game+ insanity mode, but that has more to do with lack of upgrades than your level itself). Guild Wars did this exceptionally well. You hit max level early in the game, and thus could use your build to the fullest for 80-90% of your play time, and you could very easily experiment with different builds.

Attributes/ stats tied to appearance. This is something of a personal preference, as I prefer more customization than less. In some games it's more of a problem than others. In mass effect, even though each of the base armors had their own stats, I could, if I so chose, pick which one I thought looked best and slot various upgrade bonuses to that armor. In me2, I can choose each piece of armor individually, but each piece comes with a bonus that I can't change, limiting my ability to customize. A blend of the two styles would have been ideal for me.

Tank/dps/healing or rigid, inflexible game roles. This one obviously applies more to mmos than any other type of game, but even a lot of single player games have characters that are locked into filling a single role. In an mmo context, not only do rigid roles get extremely boring extremely quickly, what goes along with them is poor ai, player elitism, and all kinds of other bad design choices.

kill ten rats style quests. Actually, I don't mind these types of quests from time to time, rather lack of quest variety is the issue. RNG style quest drops are also bad. The one that still kills me the most was in a low level area of WoW, where I had a quest to retrieve 8 gnoll paws. Every gnoll has 4 paws, but I'd sometimes kill 30-35 of them before collecting them all.

Gear grind/treadmill. There are a lot of ways this can be expressed, from the traditional rpg method of buying new gear every time you enter a new town to me1's slightly better version of each gun every few levels to WoW style not having the right gear locks you out of game content. This actually kind of goes hand in hand with my point about stats and appearance.

[Frankelshtein]

Finite lives. They strike me as wholly unnecessary. Sure, they may have made sense when you had to insert coins to continue, but they're little more than a nuisance in today's games.

Plot-central mini-games irk me as well. Especially when they're arbitrarily hard. I have to use clunky controls to smack 100 robots coming at me from all sides at extremely awkward angles to progress? No thank you :smallannoyed:

[polity4life]

Although I understand why this mechanic has become popular outside of FPS games, I don't really like the concept of being inactive to close wounds and heal. Sure, it expedites a necessary break in play. Rather than finding some resource in game or using an item, it keeps the player immersed and active. I get it. It just doesn't make sense. It seems lazy now as though this is the apex of "health" management. Let's find a better, more sensible system.

[Mazeburn]

Quicktime events during cutscenes! Especially if it's not the 'style' of the game (like with Heavy Rain). So many games, especially action (like Sassy Creed) or fighting (like Soul Calibur) titles put in random ones sporadically. I want to either be playing the game or watching the cutscene, I can't do both at once unless it's been made clear that I need to expect it. :smallmad:

[TheSummoner]

Morality systems. They're almost never done well, so it would be better for them to just disappear until people can figure out that a "good" person doesn't always have to save the blind, deaf, three-legged puppy from falling into a river, then spend a month nursing it back to health and finally paying for it to go to college; an "evil" person doesn't always have to kick that same puppy into a meat grinder; and a "neutral" person would never first save the puppy, nurse it back to health, pay for it to go to college, and then after all of that kick it into the meat grinder.

As they are now, morality systems are so abstracted that they're laughably unrealistic. Now... I have no problem with the concept of tracking a character's personality traits based on the decisions that the player makes. On paper, this sounds like a wonderful idea. But the execution is almost always so horrible that the game suffers for it.

[Science Officer]

Cut Scenes. They say a few things that don't need to be:

-"I give up, I can't tell stories with this game. Here's the story in the form of an animation."

-"Look! Cool graphics! Don't you wish the rest of the game had graphics this good."

-"Player agency? That's not all that important..."

No Cutscenes > In-Engine events where the player is not restrained > In-Engine Events where the player is somewhat restrained > Game Engine Animations > Animations with entirely different graphics

There's some... highly technical... terminology there. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand it. </s>Yeah, not very clear what I mean, sorry.

EDIT: By "highly technical" I mean I don't know the right terms so I made it up and I'm sorry.

[Airk]

It's a thought that occured to me recently. There are various elements in video games we all take for granted. However, are they really good, or are we just used to them? To start off, there are two classical features I'm increasingly unhappy with:
- Inventory system in RPGs. It wasn't until playing Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2 that I realized that I hate the inventory system used by most RPGs. Sifting through tons of items, most of which you'll sell anyway - never mind how unrealistic it is - provides gameplay with absolutely nothing and detracts from the actually fun parts.

I'm curious as to what you suggest for a replacement - a good inventory system is tied to character customization, where you have choices of armor/weapons/gear whatever. While I suppose these can just be acquired as menu choices, that feels almost like going backwards in inventory management styles, since this is how your "inventory" worked in the very first CRPGs.



- Health bar/mana bar, again in RPGs. Can't we really come up with any other ways of tracking health and magical/psychic/whatever energy? It's always the red bar, the blue bar, and potions in corresponding colours.

Again, what do you suggest as a replacement? I think that's a far more interesting question that "what do you not like in games?".

So how would you replace health bars? Do you favor a "softer" system, like a progressively more fatigued/damaged looking portrait, possibly coupled with other visual effects like a darkening around the edges of the screen? Or a "harder" system like just having a number? Maybe your character glows more brightly when he has lots of "mana" and becomes more drab looking as he expends it? You lose some precision doing this, but I suspect that in most games, most folks aren't tracking this stuff too meticulously regardless.

Re: Cutscenes: The problem with killing them is that the more player agency you allow in the scene, the more unfocused your story becomes. There is, essentially, a slider between "player agency" and "effective storytelling"; There is a little bit of wiggle room, where you can do things that grant the illusion of agency (Side quests, ability to do things nonlinearly) or the illusion of storytelling, but fundamentally, the two are more or less at odds. How effective is your "cutscene" at providing information if the player is allowed to wander off into the next room while the dialogue is happening? And if they player is allowed to wander in only a limited fashion or merely has camera control, how is that REALLY different from an actual cutscene? (Example: The Skyrim opening. TECHNICALLY you're in control of your character, but all you can really do is swing the camera around. You can't, say, randomly decide to jump up and make a break for it.) Computer games aren't at the point where they can account for every possibility (Player uses his agency to kill a character) and even if they were, not all possibilities are interesting/worth exploring. And while you can argue that my definition of "worth exploring" may be different from yours, I can counter-argue that, as a rule, gamers suck at choosing paths that are interesting to them, and will therefore often complain about how boring your game is even when they inflicted the boredom on themselves.

Food for thought.

[Morty]

I'm curious as to what you suggest for a replacement - a good inventory system is tied to character customization, where you have choices of armor/weapons/gear whatever. While I suppose these can just be acquired as menu choices, that feels almost like going backwards in inventory management styles, since this is how your "inventory" worked in the very first CRPGs.

I've already provided examples. Witcher 1 has an inventory, but you only keep books, ingredients, potions and other "minor" items there, and you only get to carry the armor you wear and the weapons you wield. Mass Effect 2 disposes of the inentory altogether which is also refreshing, although there should be more variety in selectable weapons.


So how would you replace health bars? Do you favor a "softer" system, like a progressively more fatigued/damaged looking portrait, possibly coupled with other visual effects like a darkening around the edges of the screen? Or a "harder" system like just having a number? Maybe your character glows more brightly when he has lots of "mana" and becomes more drab looking as he expends it? You lose some precision doing this, but I suspect that in most games, most folks aren't tracking this stuff too meticulously regardless.


When I said that I'm tired of health and mana bars I meant more than just the visual aspect. I'd just like to see a system of tracking health and energy that doesn't rely on boring pools of points.

[druid91]

Personally I'd like a system more like bushido blade, or Dwarf fortress.

Where getting stabbed in the arm, lost you use of that arm.

And getting stabbed in the head kills you.

[Aerodynamik]

]- Inventory system in RPGs. It wasn't until playing Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2 that I realized that I hate the inventory system used by most RPGs. Sifting through tons of items, most of which you'll sell anyway - never mind how unrealistic it is - provides gameplay with absolutely nothing and detracts from the actually fun parts.

At first, I was all like "Hell Naw! I want to customize my characters equipment! You can't take that away from me!" But then I thought about it some more, and I realized that I would actually have no problem if you took away inventory systems, so long as character creation was beefed up in other areas.

I mean, think about it. Have you ever read a book where the character changed his armor or weapons more than two dozen times, replacing it with slightly better models he's looted from his opponents? Have you ever watched a movie where the character had to stop what he was doing so he could did through his inventory and re sort it, so he could have enough space to take the magical staff he just looted from a random chest in the town square.

I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins lately. At the begining of the game, my character received his family's magical sword, which had been passed down for generations. Before the introductory level was even half over, however, I had replaced it with a slightly better sword. Dramatically, though, it makes more sense for the character to carry around his family's sword throughout the whole game. Removing inventory systems allows for there to be dramatic connections between characters and their equipment, and also removes the constant need to fiddle with your equipment, both of which, in my mind detract from your immersion in the game world.

Also, having to stop part way through a dungeon run to loot chests, or choose which item to drop so you don't go past your item limit totally breaks the flow of the game. As long as we get the extra character customization in somewhere, I say we just drop it. Or we could even have opportunities to change the character's equipment, but maybe it could only be done in town, and once you got new equipment, your old gear was automatically sold. Thus removing the need for anything more than a gold piece meter.

tl;dr: DOWN WITH INVENTORY SCREENS!

[Zorg]

Unlocks, especially for multiplayer, and especially for racing games - I want to be able to buy the game and drive the awesome car on cool tracks like shown on the box, not starting driving a car I actually drive in real life.

Unlocks for a campaign system I can understand, but I've not bought games because of excessive multiplayer unlocks (Space Marine, I'm looking at you).

I also agree with the appearance/stats tie in. I wanted my dragonborn to be running around in iron armour the whole game - it just works, but it's not mechanically possible :smallfrown:

[Science Officer]

Re: Cutscenes: The problem with killing them is that the more player agency you allow in the scene, the more unfocused your story becomes. There is, essentially, a slider between "player agency" and "effective storytelling"; There is a little bit of wiggle room, where you can do things that grant the illusion of agency (Side quests, ability to do things nonlinearly) or the illusion of storytelling, but fundamentally, the two are more or less at odds. How effective is your "cutscene" at providing information if the player is allowed to wander off into the next room while the dialogue is happening? And if they player is allowed to wander in only a limited fashion or merely has camera control, how is that REALLY different from an actual cutscene? (Example: The Skyrim opening. TECHNICALLY you're in control of your character, but all you can really do is swing the camera around. You can't, say, randomly decide to jump up and make a break for it.) Computer games aren't at the point where they can account for every possibility (Player uses his agency to kill a character) and even if they were, not all possibilities are interesting/worth exploring. And while you can argue that my definition of "worth exploring" may be different from yours, I can counter-argue that, as a rule, gamers suck at choosing paths that are interesting to them, and will therefore often complain about how boring your game is even when they inflicted the boredom on themselves.

Food for thought.

Yes, perhaps "agency" is a bit of an exaggeration to describe camera control, but that's better than nothing.
But agency is only at odds with story telling when the player uses it to actively ignore the story, or attempt to change it in ways that they are not able to.

I haven't played Skyrim, but the beginning of Oblivion sticks in my head. The guard calls out "Get away from the door or we'll crack your skull." or something equivalent. So I retreat from the door.
Did that really change anything? Probably not. What would have happened if I'd stayed near the door? Die and restart, or nothing, probably. After that, the [spoilers] happen in what is essentially a cut-scene (you certainly can't change it in any way) but it happens in the game engine, and you can witness it and react to it as you choose (to a limited extent).

But there's a meaningful difference, I think, between moving your character in response to something, and witnessing a scripted sequence where your character moves. Mainly, it was something that you chose to do.

Contrast the beginning of Homefront and the beginning of Half Life 2. In HL2, you arrive on a train, you walk around a station, and then things happen. You can "talk" to people in the station, you can stay and listen to the broadcasts, you can examine various details and see little scenes. Or you can not. If you prefer, you can walk along the route and skip whatever you want. You can "pick up that can" or throw it in the metrocop's face. Whichever course you take (limited, scripted, and pre-planned though it may be), it is much more enjoyable to take it, than to watch (from a camera, or from a first person perspective) Gordon Freeman take it.

In Homefront, IIRC, you are dragged out of your apartment and placed on a bus, and then things happen. The guards force you up against a wall so they can force you to look at them. There's only one place you can sit on the bus. The only other passenger always talks to you. You can look in a few directions, but you'll probably witness the scenes outside either way. The whole game made me feel like I was being dragged through it by the scruff of my neck more than anything.

And that's fundamentally what I want, for more parts of a game to be played and fewer parts watched.

Sorry about that, I've probably significantly changed my apparent position from my first post.


EDIT: Here's how I think of it. Every game is a role-playing game, in every game you play a role. Often (usually), you cannot choose or define the role, it is given to you. Player freedom/scripted sequences/cut scenes are the difference between being an actor and being a puppet.

[Zevox]

- Health bar/mana bar, again in RPGs. Can't we really come up with any other ways of tracking health and magical/psychic/whatever energy? It's always the red bar, the blue bar, and potions in corresponding colours. It's different from the first element in that I can't really think of an RPG game that does away with both of them.
I absolutely disagree with that. Why on earth would you want to do away with one of the most crucial, useful pieces of a game's interface? :smallconfused:


Morality systems. They're almost never done well, so it would be better for them to just disappear until people can figure out that a "good" person doesn't always have to save the blind, deaf, three-legged puppy from falling into a river, then spend a month nursing it back to health and finally paying for it to go to college; an "evil" person doesn't always have to kick that same puppy into a meat grinder; and a "neutral" person would never first save the puppy, nurse it back to health, pay for it to go to college, and then after all of that kick it into the meat grinder.

As they are now, morality systems are so abstracted that they're laughably unrealistic. Now... I have no problem with the concept of tracking a character's personality traits based on the decisions that the player makes. On paper, this sounds like a wonderful idea. But the execution is almost always so horrible that the game suffers for it.
I do agree with this though. After playing the Dragon Age games I was left wishing Bioware would do away with that in all of their games from now on. Unfortunately Mass Effect is stuck with it at this point, but maybe after ME3 they can ditch it altogether.


Cut Scenes. They say a few things that don't need to be:

-"I give up, I can't tell stories with this game. Here's the story in the form of an animation."

-"Look! Cool graphics! Don't you wish the rest of the game had graphics this good."

-"Player agency? That's not all that important..."

No Cutscenes > In-Engine events where the player is not restrained > In-Engine Events where the player is somewhat restrained > Game Engine Animations > Animations with entirely different graphics

There's some... highly technical... terminology there. I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand it. Yeah, not very clear what I mean, sorry.
Also disagree completely. Cutscenes are a very important storytelling tool. And no, "player agency" is not at all important to a good story. As Airk pointed out, it actually makes it harder to tell a good story, because it's an attempt to give control of that story to the players, rather than the guys that by the nature of the medium as a wholly pre-programmed one have to be in control of it, the writers.

My own suggestions:
- In RPGs, either remove spells/abilities designed to inflict negative status effects (poison, sleep, etc), or make damn sure that they're useful against something, and that the player has a way of knowing that they are. As-is bosses are usually the only thing powerful enough that you'd want to bother with using those kinds of effects on them, but they're also almost always completely immune to them. It's to the point where I habitually ignore those abilities in any game simply because it's a safe assumption that they'll be useless.
- In fighting games, specifically those made by Capcom, I really wish they'd do away with throws being done by hitting forward/back + heavy attack when you're a certain distance away from the enemy, and just use a damn throw button (or button combination, like BlazBlue) already.
- Mandatory mini-games. Frankly most mini-games aren't worth playing anyway, but at least if you must have them, keep them optional. I haven't finished Final Fantasy 7, but easily my biggest complaint with what I did play of it was that I was tripping over unskippable mini-games ever hour or so.

Zevox

[Knaight]

So how would you replace health bars? Do you favor a "softer" system, like a progressively more fatigued/damaged looking portrait, possibly coupled with other visual effects like a darkening around the edges of the screen? Or a "harder" system like just having a number? Maybe your character glows more brightly when he has lots of "mana" and becomes more drab looking as he expends it? You lose some precision doing this, but I suspect that in most games, most folks aren't tracking this stuff too meticulously regardless.


I wasn't the person to whom this was addressed, but I have seen a few other effective systems. Chief among them: Lugaru.

Lugaru is essentially a 3D 3rd person fighting game, though it has a very unique control system and doesn't have the feel of most other fighting games. The basic health system is that you have a certain amount of health, and there are two kinds of attacks - killing and stun, effectively. Killing attacks permanently wound, stun causes temporary damage, which recovers pretty quickly. When you take a bunch of stun damage (say someone kicks you into a tree, as what you collide with when knocked around affects damage and trees are pretty nasty) your screen suddenly blurs, simulating the disorientation of the character. It then rights itself. When you take killing damage, you see the same thing, but you also see red - moreover, killing damage leaves cuts on the character that last until they heal over time (between levels).

As for inventory screens - I've seen them done well. Most RPGs, particularly western RPGs, have a terrible method. I am all for drastic reduction in the amount of stuff being hauled around.

[Science Officer]

Also disagree completely. Cutscenes are a very important storytelling tool. And no, "player agency" is not at all important to a good story. As Airk pointed out, it actually makes it harder to tell a good story, because it's an attempt to give control of that story to the players, rather than the guys that by the nature of the medium as a wholly pre-programmed one have to be in control of it, the writers.


Games aren't about the writers. Games are about the players. << please don't take that seriously :smallbiggrin:

Again, I must say, probably, I went a little far describing what I like as "player agency". Not many games can afford to let the player control the story, but I would like to be more able to control my own character.

And yes, it does make it harder to tell a good story. I dislike cut-scenes for being the easy way out. Saying, "I give up, I can't tell my story with this game, I'll have to tell it with this video instead." Exposition can be done subtly, can be done within regular gameplay.

Lastly, probably I mis-interpreted this thread.
I would not like cut-scenes to categorically "disappear".
I would like out-of-engine (not sure how to say that) cut-scenes to be used less (though they are, and are mostly for graphics showcasing which I guess is okay). I would like scripted events or in-engine cut-scenes or what-have you to be used as sparingly as possible.

For some of what I mean, you might want to take a look at the Extra Credits video on Missile Command ( I think that's the one, but can't seem to find it atm) where they describe it as a game that communicates a powerful story without the use of cut scenes.

EDIT: as for "player agency" being important to a good story, I'll use my examples of Oblivion and Homefront. I was able to walk, jump, and look around during the beginning of Oblivion. In Homefront I was shoved, pulled, driven, and tossed around.

In either case I was only an observer and exerted no agency on the events, but Oblivion made me feel like a part of the story/world/happenings, whereas the less-interactive beginning of Homefront made me feel alienated and detached.

[Bouregard]

Regenerating health. Scrounging for healthpacks was a fun mechanism.

Savepoints. There is no technical reason to not allow saving anytime.

Unskippable cutscenes. Seriously, this boss is hard and I like to fight him but do I have to watch the cutscene 40 times?

[Grif]

Regenerating health. Scrounging for healthpacks was a fun mechanism.


I won't shed a tear if regenerating health gets the boot.

Seriously, nothing breaks immersion more than having to only crouch for a few minutes to get your health back and before going back to eating another face full of bullets. At least medpacks gives you the impetus of actually putting some thought on how to face enemies.

[Zevox]

Games aren't about the writers. Games are about the players. << please don't take that seriously :smallbiggrin:
Actually, they're not about either. They're about whatever they're designed to be about. For any game with a heavy emphasis on its story though, the writers are far more important than the players.


Again, I must say, probably, I went a little far describing what I like as "player agency". Not many games can afford to let the player control the story, but I would like to be more able to control my own character.

And yes, it does make it harder to tell a good story. I dislike cut-scenes for being the easy way out. Saying, "I give up, I can't tell my story with this game, I'll have to tell it with this video instead." Exposition can be done subtly, can be done within regular gameplay.

Lastly, probably I mis-interpreted this thread.
I would not like cut-scenes to categorically "disappear".
I would like out-of-engine (not sure how to say that) cut-scenes to be used less (though they are, and are mostly for graphics showcasing which I guess is okay). I would like scripted events or in-engine cut-scenes or what-have you to be used as sparingly as possible.

For some of what I mean, you might want to take a look at the Extra Credits video on Missile Command ( I think that's the one, but can't seem to find it atm) where they describe it as a game that communicates a powerful story without the use of cut scenes.

EDIT: as for "player agency" being important to a good story, I'll use my examples of Oblivion and Homefront. I was able to walk, jump, and look around during the beginning of Oblivion. In Homefront I was shoved, pulled, driven, and tossed around.

In either case I was only an observer and exerted no agency on the events, but Oblivion made me feel like a part of the story/world/happenings, whereas the less-interactive beginning of Homefront made me feel alienated and detached.
I've never played Homefront, but I did play the first half-hour or so of Oblivion, and I disagree with you. I do not believe that Oblivion not using cutscenes during that portion improved it in the least - quite the contrary, I'd rather the game have used cutscenes to make the parts of the opening where I wasn't fighting something more cinematic and enjoyable to watch. That would have been an improvement. If there's no reason for me to be controlling the character during an exposition scene, it's probably better off as a cutscene, because you can do much more with those visually.

Zevox

[Vitruviansquid]

I'm not saying there's no room for persistent level-up mechanics, but I hate seeing how many games these days have them just to have them.

Games that are played in independent sessions like League of Legends, Age of Empires Online, and Might and Magic Heroes 6 don't need persistent level-up mechanics :\

[Science Officer]

Actually, they're not about either. They're about whatever they're designed to be about. For any game with a heavy emphasis on its story though, the writers are far more important than the players.

I've never played Homefront, but I did play the first half-hour or so of Oblivion, and I disagree with you. I do not believe that Oblivion not using cutscenes during that portion improved it in the least - quite the contrary, I'd rather the game have used cutscenes to make the parts of the opening where I wasn't fighting something more cinematic and enjoyable to watch. That would have been an improvement. If there's no reason for me to be controlling the character during an exposition scene, it's probably better off as a cutscene, because you can do much more with those visually.
Zevox

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd say if there's any way that you can allow the player to control the character during an exposition scene, or to cast it as a gameplay segment (and still deliver the exposition) than that should be done, because there's much more you can do to immerse the player. Even if the player can't change anything.
In my mind, game aren't meant to be "enjoyable to watch", they're meant to be enjoyable to play.


I'm not saying there's no room for persistent level-up mechanics, but I hate seeing how many games these days have them just to have them.

Games that are played in independent sessions like League of Legends, Age of Empires Online, and Might and Magic Heroes 6 don't need persistent level-up mechanics :\

But, LoL doesn't have persistent level-ups. It is, as you say, played in independent sessions. :smallconfused:
But the MOBA genre does need a way for some players to become more powerful than other players, other than equipment.

Unless you mean summoner levels which probably don't need to be the way they are.

[MCerberus]

"Loot Tubes" I would like to die a very painful death. For those who are not familiar, it's a (formerly) RPG-centric term for a dungeon or area in which you have one and exactly one way to go to collect your reward.

No secondary stuff, no alternate paths, just enemies that you have to kill then move forward. What's worse is that they've entrenched themselves in shooters. *cough*CoD*cough*. The game doesn't trust you enough to go find the secret pickups, or the good position for you to snipe before moving on. You have to sit there and go forward until the scripted thing happens.

The fact that stuff from the early 90s had secret treasure rooms, optional paths to fight the secret boss and the lot... just seems backwards.

oh, and in case you're wondering: the origin of the term
Way back in the day, WoW had sprawling dungeons. It was more than common to find groups for doing exactly 1/2 of them. However, the most popular dungeon played by players was the "Scarlet Monestary." Instead of one big dungeon there was a hub, and 3 linear dungeons.

When the first expansion launched, they heavily used this design because it had proven popular. So pretty well every dungeon ended up a one-way street between bosses, many of which the only way out was to walk out the way you came in. Thus "Loot Tubes" were born.


And quicktime events.

[Zevox]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd say if there's any way that you can allow the player to control the character during an exposition scene, or to cast it as a gameplay segment (and still deliver the exposition) than that should be done, because there's much more you can do to immerse the player. Even if the player can't change anything.
In my mind, game aren't meant to be "enjoyable to watch", they're meant to be enjoyable to play.
But you don't "play" anything during an exposition scene, you listen to the dialogue and watch what the characters do. When gameplay is suspended in order to tell the story, it's much better to be enjoyable to watch than to sacrifice that enjoyment in the name of "immersion*."

*Which is something I have never understood when other people talk about it. I never get "immersed" in a game because of the gameplay portion. When I do, it's always because the story sucks me in, because I get attached to the characters and to the events going on. Every attempt I've ever seen or heard of to bring more "immersion" to a game's gameplay has always struck me as a bad idea, because that simply does not work for me, and it always seems to involve sacrificing something else that I think improves either the gameplay or the story, whether that be cutscenes, an HUD, or even menu screens (see Fable 3 for that last, probably one of the worst examples I've ever heard of for this sort of thing).

Zevox

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Tank/dps/healing or rigid, inflexible game roles. This one obviously applies more to mmos than any other type of game, but even a lot of single player games have characters that are locked into filling a single role. In an mmo context, not only do rigid roles get extremely boring extremely quickly, what goes along with them is poor ai, player elitism, and all kinds of other bad design choices.

The Holy Trinity of MMOs should go die face-down in a ditch filled with it's own blood and guts, absolutely. I do however disagree that poor AI and player elitism go hand in hand to it. Poor AI is gonna happen regardless, but that's a problem that comes from the taunt-meter model (which I suppose the trinity does enable somewhat). Player elitism usually stems from 'us vs them' situations. While the trinity causes this to some degree (e.g. "Healers are so lazy", "DPSers are stupid", "Tank was asleep", etc), I'm unsure wether removing the Trinity would have a noticeable effect when you still have things like "Horde vs Alliance" to keep the fires stoked.

The reason I think it should die is simply that it's boring. I like the idea of tactical combat roles, but the Tank/DPS/Healer model is too limited to offer interesting variations.

[Airk]

Yes, perhaps "agency" is a bit of an exaggeration to describe camera control, but that's better than nothing.
But agency is only at odds with story telling when the player uses it to actively ignore the story, or attempt to change it in ways that they are not able to.

This is true, but those are the most "popular" things about player agency. In fact, I'd argue those are pretty much the only things it's really good for. See below:



I haven't played Skyrim, but the beginning of Oblivion sticks in my head. The guard calls out "Get away from the door or we'll crack your skull." or something equivalent. So I retreat from the door.
Did that really change anything? Probably not. What would have happened if I'd stayed near the door? Die and restart, or nothing, probably.

See, this is one of those illusions. You don't actually HAVE ANY control of your character here - at least, not in any way that means anything. The guard isn't actually going to do anything, because killing you then and there would be a negative player experience, and because there's literally nothing else you can do to influence the situation. You don't actually have any agency here, so all the game is doing is letting you 'pretend'. For some people, this is better, but for me it's a waste of time.

That said, I think it depends heavily on the type of story the game is trying to convey. If it's a western style RPG about a character who basically has no personality (Any Elder Scrolls protagonist, Commander Sheperd, Gordon Freeman, etc) then it's fine to let the player amble around the room like they have ADD, but if you're trying to build a character who already HAS a personality, and HAS a way that they would react to this sort of situation, then letting the player fumble around the room as if the character has only just now realized that he can walk around the prison cell that he's been confined in for the last X days is a significant negative.



But there's a meaningful difference, I think, between moving your character in response to something, and witnessing a scripted sequence where your character moves. Mainly, it was something that you chose to do.

I feel the difference is only meaningful when the player's actions are meaningful. If there's an area where you can interact with NPCs on some level to provide optional color, that's okay, but the ability to say, throw a rock at someone and have them say "hey, stop it." every time you do is a waste of programming time that could've been spent on something that conveys something.


Contrast the beginning of Homefront and the beginning of Half Life 2. In HL2, you arrive on a train, you walk around a station, and then things happen. You can "talk" to people in the station, you can stay and listen to the broadcasts, you can examine various details and see little scenes. Or you can not. If you prefer, you can walk along the route and skip whatever you want. You can "pick up that can" or throw it in the metrocop's face. Whichever course you take (limited, scripted, and pre-planned though it may be), it is much more enjoyable to take it, than to watch (from a camera, or from a first person perspective) Gordon Freeman take it.

But see, Gordon Freeman has no personality, so that's fine, but if the main character were, I don't know, a compulsive neat freak, then your only alternative is to use a very heavy-handed approach where the character/game basically tells you "No, I don't want to do that." when you try to do something out of character, and to me, that ruins the effect far more than a cutscene.



And that's fundamentally what I want, for more parts of a game to be played and fewer parts watched.

I don't think that this is necessarily a noble goal in and of itself.



EDIT: Here's how I think of it. Every game is a role-playing game, in every game you play a role. Often (usually), you cannot choose or define the role, it is given to you. Player freedom/scripted sequences/cut scenes are the difference between being an actor and being a puppet.

See, it's that "often(usually)" that gets me. I disagree. I don't usually care for games that tell me to just "make it up"; I "just got here" but this character, presumably being 20+ years old, should bloody well have some sort of personality without me having to force him to have one.

I would consider it the difference between being an ACTOR ("Your character is an aging army veteran, who was deeply traumatized by what he witnessed in the war. He jumps at loud noises, but feels deeply loyal to his country.") and being an ad-lib performer. ("Hey, that guy looked a me funny! I'll play off that and try to make it entertaining!").

[polity4life]

Zevox, have you tried the Dead Space games? I think those two games really show off how to execute gameplay that immerses the player into the world. They're by far the best horror games on the market simply because you are rarely afforded opportunities to pause, the tense moments are effective, and the HUD is simply your avatar; his health bar is on his back and the spartan equipment menus come up from some device on your wrist (all while the action is live). Everything else is simply the terrible environments through which you must navigate.

If you've tried them and didn't like them, then ohh well. If not, give them a fair try.

[MCerberus]

The reason I think it should die is simply that it's boring. I like the idea of tactical combat roles, but the Tank/DPS/Healer model is too limited to offer interesting variations.

I think RPG makers should look to how shooters have done it. 'Tanks' are slower, have more firepower, and big explosions. 'Healers' are often fast buggers that you end up dead underestimating. 'DPS' have good firepower, and a ton of tricks to use to gain the advantage.

Think Enemy Territory, Brink, Killing Floor(a completely PvE game), or TF2.

[Zevox]

Zevox, have you tried the Dead Space games?
I have not. If memory serves, they're shooter/horror games, no? Because those are both genres that I generally have no interest in, and thus avoid as a general rule. I do not like shooter gameplay, and see no appeal to deliberately frightening myself, so I avoid the horror genre in all its forms (games, books, movies, etc).

There are rare exceptions, but there's always something else that draws me to those. Mass Effect is a Bioware RPG instead of just a shooter, Catherine had and interesting premise and Persona Team's writing behind it, that sort of thing.

Zevox

[Yora]

- Inventory system in RPGs. It wasn't until playing Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2 that I realized that I hate the inventory system used by most RPGs. Sifting through tons of items, most of which you'll sell anyway - never mind how unrealistic it is - provides gameplay with absolutely nothing and detracts from the actually fun parts.
Yes! Vendor Junk really is completely unneccessary. Even in the Witcher, I felt that they should have just scrapped all those food and drinks as well. Except for crafting materials, they were completely useless and just clogged up the inventory and required extra work of getting rid of the junk you automatically got when searching enemiees for coins.
ME2 is really the best case: When it is not a completely new type of equipment and has no impact on the gameplay, don't have to player deal with it. Just get your money and ammo automatically and have about 4 or 5 new weapon types lying around in the whole game.

I also prefer the much simpler character system. If you chose a class, all you really should to have to bother with is active special abilities. If you have made the choice at character creation to be an archer, then why bother at each new level to put extra points in Dexterity? I never think "I wish I had +2% more critical damage in exchange for -1% chance to resist being knocked down"? This just never happens to me. When I level up in RPGs, I just go by "2 in Dex, 1 in Con, 1 in Wis, 1 in Magic every level". I never pour over my options, reconsidering if I need a teeny tiny boost to defense or rather have a non-noticable increase on damage.
I like to make the big descisions like learning fireball or magic shield, but I don't want to be bothered with tiny details I don't even understand.

Also Auto-Save: Why do strategy games still not have automatic saving any 30 minutes? The Settlers 2 had that, like 15 years ago. It's so easy, why not have it in any RTS? And in RPGs, I want the save to be before I enter an area, not the moment I already did that. Yes, this may mean I have to see the loading screen twice. But when a new area starts with a cutscene that locks the door behind me, I can use the autosave only to restart the level, but not to decide not to enter the level yet.

Next thing: Quick Time Events.
QTEs have the major flaw that they require you to keep watching that one spot where the button commands are displayed, so you can't actually watch whatever cool things your character is doing in response to your button pressing.
The best "Beating your enemy to death in a finishing blow" moments I had in Bioshock 2. Bioshock 2 doesn't have QTEs, but instead you sometimes get into melee fights with enemies just as strong as you are, with both of you doing lots of damage and being low on health. At that point you just use the normal controls you use all the time time to get a lightning strike out and repeatedly bash his head in with a giant drill.
So when you make a QTE in which the character jumps and ducks over obstacles to punch the giant monster in the face, don't make the player press random buttons that appear on the screen. Make the player press the buttons for "Jump", "Duck", and "Punsh". You can still display them on screen, but once the player has it figured out how this works after the second or third time, you can enjoy the action of your character, and actually have to focus on it to see the moment you have to push buttons.

[Morty]

I absolutely disagree with that. Why on earth would you want to do away with one of the most crucial, useful pieces of a game's interface? :smallconfused:


Like I said before, it's the hit points and mana points themselves I have a beef with, not just the bars. I'd really like some more original ways to keep track of health and special ability juice.
As for the tank/dps/healbot trinity - yeah, it needs to go as well. Especially the healbot role. It irritated me to no end in Dragon Age for instance that there was really little point in evading damage or resisting it - what counted was a healer who restored HP faster than the enemy took it from you.

[Zevox]

I also prefer the much simpler character system. If you chose a class, all you really should to have to bother with is active special abilities. If you have made the choice at character creation to be an archer, then why bother at each new level to put extra points in Dexterity? I never think "I wish I had +2% more critical damage in exchange for -1% chance to resist being knocked down"? This just never happens to me. When I level up in RPGs, I just go by "2 in Dex, 1 in Con, 1 in Wis, 1 in Magic every level". I never pour over my options, reconsidering if I need a teeny tiny boost to defense or rather have a non-noticable increase on damage.
I like to make the big descisions like learning fireball or magic shield, but I don't want to be bothered with tiny details I don't even understand.
In general I would agree, but there are some instances where I think being able to customize stat gain on level up works: when it allows for viable and meaningfully different character builds within a class. For example, in the Dragon Age games mages can gain the Blood Mage specialization, which allows them to cast spells from their health instead of their mana. This allows you to do a completely different character build where you ignore the willpower stat (which you would normally pump to gain mana) and instead pump the constitution stat in order to gain hp, since that can fuel your casting instead. This obviously has the added bonus of making the character more durable than most mages would ever be, but also carries an inherent risk since you're spending your own health in order to fight. That makes for an interesting alternative to the otherwise-obvious normal route for the mage class.


Like I said before, it's the hit points and mana points themselves I have a beef with, not just the bars. I'd really like some more original ways to keep track of health and special ability juice.
...like what? I can't think of any sort of alternative that wouldn't be completely inferior. Health and mana points are simple and work well at their purpose. What else could you use in their place that wouldn't be either unnecessarily more complex or less intuitive?

Zevox

[Aux-Ash]

I'd like to see the narrowminded focus on violent solutions to all challenges (except in niche games) to be toned down. Especially in rpgs. Stealth. Negotiation. Distractions. Climbing. Disguise. I want to see that given moments to shine. Give me several tools to overcome preferably every situation, make them all equally interactive and then reward me for my creativity.

Let me decide who my character is not only by what I say and what I profess as my values but also how I overcome my problems.

As a consequence, I'd imagine that combat could be made quite dangerous. Which makes it all the more powerful narratively when I choose to resort to it.

Primarily for rpgs, though I would very much welcome it in more genres as well.

[JadedDM]

I mean, think about it. Have you ever read a book where the character changed his armor or weapons more than two dozen times, replacing it with slightly better models he's looted from his opponents? Have you ever watched a movie where the character had to stop what he was doing so he could did through his inventory and re sort it, so he could have enough space to take the magical staff he just looted from a random chest in the town square.

But books are not video games, and video games are not books. Books have no player interaction. They are passive entertainment. (Well, except for choose-your-own-adventure books, I guess.) Video games have an interactive component.

Video games do not need stories. I agree that when they do have stories, they should put some effort and thought into them. But sacrificing gameplay for narrative just seems absurd to me. Yes, having to constantly change out weapons and armor breaks up the narrative, but that is a gameplay element. It's a reward system, as well as a balancing mechanic.

[Morty]

But books are not video games, and video games are not books. Books have no player interaction. They are passive entertainment. (Well, except for choose-your-own-adventure books, I guess.) Video games have an interactive component.

Video games do not need stories. I agree that when they do have stories, they should put some effort and thought into them. But sacrificing gameplay for narrative just seems absurd to me. Yes, having to constantly change out weapons and armor breaks up the narrative, but that is a gameplay element. It's a reward system, as well as a balancing mechanic.

Yes, but if an element is tedious, boring and distracts from gameplay - like inventory in most RPGs - why include it?

[Lord Seth]

I don't think I had any issues with the inventory in NetHack. Though admittedly, NetHack is a bit different than most RPGs.

[Top cat]

I want deus ex style health. Different body parts that get damaged and affect your performance. I'm tired of beating people so that one little punch will kill them, yet they are still somehow running around at full speed. It could also enable things like:

Lots of damage to the head in a short amount of time -----> character loses consciousness; possibly survives (who has time to check a pulse in a battle?)
Broken legs -----> have to crawl, deus ex style
Pain sounds when not directly being hit
Vision changes, particularly for head damage
Shakey screen at low health, making it harder to aim/concentrate
Blood, and blood loss

Another thing is that in rpgs, your character should not be some superhuman who can run around without food or sleep (unless it's part of the setting, of course). This has been done in primary needs mods for oblivion (and presumable morrowind), and the game STALKER. Personally, I think it makes your character feel a lot more like a regular human being rather than some cigar chomping badass. Maybe there are games when I'd want to feel like that, but for most games it's inappropriate. Hunger or tiredness should start to cause some of the effects above.

Lastly, health usually either regenerates really, really quickly or instantly shoots up due to medkits. Both are wrong IMO: Health should regenerate, but pretty damn slowly (I think STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl had the right idea). Of course, you need to keep playing, so some kind of medkits (or healing potions) are a necessity. But they should take time, and only affect the injuries you had sustained at time of use (for medkits, possibly not for potions). STALKER did a great job of making me really, really want to avoid getting hurt, but the effect was somewhat spoiled when I realised I was lugging a bunch of insta-heals around with me anyway. It just seemed silly.

Tl;dr: More realistic health system with consequences other than death, and non-damage factors included.

[Kzickas]

Mooks. Actually they don't have to go away entirely, I just want one or two games were every fight isn't against a wave of individually irrelevant enemies.

Oh and regenerating health. Combat is less exiting when there's only one possible outcome (enemies dead, full health) and the only question is wether you have to reload to reach it.

[Mewtarthio]

Contrast the beginning of Homefront and the beginning of Half Life 2. In HL2, you arrive on a train, you walk around a station, and then things happen. You can "talk" to people in the station, you can stay and listen to the broadcasts, you can examine various details and see little scenes. Or you can not. If you prefer, you can walk along the route and skip whatever you want. You can "pick up that can" or throw it in the metrocop's face. Whichever course you take (limited, scripted, and pre-planned though it may be), it is much more enjoyable to take it, than to watch (from a camera, or from a first person perspective) Gordon Freeman take it.

The beginning of Half-Life 2 is an amazing work of art, true. However, compare that with one of the exposition-heavy "interactive cutscenes," like, say, "Black Mesa East." The interactivity really didn't add much to that level. You get to wander around and fiddle with things while everyone exposits at you, and that's it. You can't walk straight to the ending, because you need to hear all the exposition first. You can't really explore, because you need to be in whichever room has the important dialogue going on. Worse, if it's your second playthrough, you can't just hit ESC to skip the cutscene, because it's not a cutscene at all.

[Starwulf]

To answer the question as posed by the thread title itself: No, surprisingly. There is nothing I would change out of current video games. IMO, every different element/aspect that can be found in various games, RPGs and others, all have specific purposes, and I pretty much enjoy them all when I encounter them ^^

[Zevox]

Another thing is that in rpgs, your character should not be some superhuman who can run around without food or sleep (unless it's part of the setting, of course). This has been done in primary needs mods for oblivion (and presumable morrowind), and the game STALKER. Personally, I think it makes your character feel a lot more like a regular human being rather than some cigar chomping badass. Maybe there are games when I'd want to feel like that, but for most games it's inappropriate. Hunger or tiredness should start to cause some of the effects above.
Oh hell no, I do not want to see that. Forcing me to take time out of the game to go to an inn or eat something or the like just to reset an otherwise-useless stat in order to avoid penalties is not fun in any way. That only belongs in a game if one of the main points of it is a heavily emphasis on realism.

Zevox

[Morty]

Mooks. Actually they don't have to go away entirely, I just want one or two games were every fight isn't against a wave of individually irrelevant enemies.

I have to agree here. Waves of weak enemies have their uses, but they're frequently misused. It's even more grating when there's no real point to them - just a random bunch of enemies to pad out the length of a part of the game.

[Yora]

I want to see more shoters in which everyone can take two or three hits at the most. That are still playable of course, but in which you can't just say "I run over the square to that house and shot the 5 guys inside.

Back in the days of X-Wing, you could have levels in which you got only 2 or 3 kills, and they were still great. If you are in a battle with 20 guys on your side, and 40 enemies, why is it only you who kills those 40? A game in which you pin enemies down to be able to advance to better positions could be quite fun I guess.

[Starwulf]

Oh hell no, I do not want to see that. Forcing me to take time out of the game to go to an inn or eat something or the like just to reset an otherwise-useless stat in order to avoid penalties is not fun in any way.

Zevox

Actually, I'll fully agree here. Thankfully, I've never played a game where eating and drinking was mandatory, it was always on a hard-core mode, or through mods. You're playing a fantasy game where the character can carry 100's of items(or more, if you can carry 99 of each type of potion or thing like that). What in the hell is the point in forcing you to go and eat and drink and rest every so often if you can carry 100s of times more then your own body weight in items(please note, I have no problem with being able to do that, I"m just using it as a comparison to show how ludicrous it is to make you eat and drink when you can do other things completely outside the realm of what is normally possible).

[Gnoman]

At odds with much of the thread here, but I would really like to see "save anywhere" systems be phased out in most cases. I generally prefer wither savepoints (the biggest virtue of which is reminding me to actually save) or autosaves. The TES/Fo3 "autosave on rest" is a fair compromise between the two.

[Science Officer]

But you don't "play" anything during an exposition scene, you listen to the dialogue and watch what the characters do. When gameplay is suspended in order to tell the story, it's much better to be enjoyable to watch than to sacrifice that enjoyment in the name of "immersion*."

Zevox

Well, maybe you don't. I don't. I also like immersion, so on those two points I suppose we differ. Like I said, I approach (almost) every game I play as though it were an RPG, whether the mechanics support this or not.

And it seems everyone is assuming that the player would use any freedom given during a scripted scene to ignore the scene. Even if they just watch the scene as they would if camera control was seized, being able to chose to do that is huge to me.


This is true, but those are the most "popular" things about player agency. In fact, I'd argue those are pretty much the only things it's really good for. See below:


And I'd argue that they aren't. *shrugs*
If I can't alter the story as I'd chose, I'd like to at least witness it as I choose.



See, this is one of those illusions. You don't actually HAVE ANY control of your character here - at least, not in any way that means anything. The guard isn't actually going to do anything, because killing you then and there would be a negative player experience, and because there's literally nothing else you can do to influence the situation. You don't actually have any agency here, so all the game is doing is letting you 'pretend'. For some people, this is better, but for me it's a waste of time.


Aha, you have hit the nail on the head. In an RPG, and in almost every game, what I want to do is pretend.



That said, I think it depends heavily on the type of story the game is trying to convey. If it's a western style RPG about a character who basically has no personality (Any Elder Scrolls protagonist, Commander Sheperd, Gordon Freeman, etc) then it's fine to let the player amble around the room like they have ADD, but if you're trying to build a character who already HAS a personality, and HAS a way that they would react to this sort of situation, then letting the player fumble around the room as if the character has only just now realized that he can walk around the prison cell that he's been confined in for the last X days is a significant negative.


The player might amble around the room like they have ADD, they might creep around like a spook, they might watch solemnly, they might cower in the corner. Allowing them to do so is a small thing, but something I like.



I feel the difference is only meaningful when the player's actions are meaningful.

Here, I disagree. To me it is always meaningful.



If there's an area where you can interact with NPCs on some level to provide optional color, that's okay, but the ability to say, throw a rock at someone and have them say "hey, stop it." every time you do is a waste of programming time that could've been spent on something that conveys something.


Well, that would convey something. It would convey that the NPCs don't like being hit by rocks. But you're right, that probably would be a waste of time.



But see, Gordon Freeman has no personality, so that's fine, but if the main character were, I don't know, a compulsive neat freak, then your only alternative is to use a very heavy-handed approach where the character/game basically tells you "No, I don't want to do that." when you try to do something out of character, and to me, that ruins the effect far more than a cutscene.


Fair enough.



I don't think that this is necessarily a noble goal in and of itself.


I do. On this point too, we differ.



See, it's that "often(usually)" that gets me. I disagree. I don't usually care for games that tell me to just "make it up"; I "just got here" but this character, presumably being 20+ years old, should bloody well have some sort of personality without me having to force him to have one.

I would consider it the difference between being an ACTOR ("Your character is an aging army veteran, who was deeply traumatized by what he witnessed in the war. He jumps at loud noises, but feels deeply loyal to his country.") and being an ad-lib performer. ("Hey, that guy looked a me funny! I'll play off that and try to make it entertaining!").

Well, playing blank characters doesn't bother me. I love making up characters. However, let's go with your example of an aging army veteran.

At one point, an NPC well known to you reveals himself to be a traitor whose actions have greatly damaged the country. You, playing your character, pull a gun on him and start shooting. That would be being an "actor".
Or perhaps you haven't been paying attention to your character and fail to react. After a few awkward moments the game forces you to draw your gun and the NPC becomes hostile. The scripted sequence causes your character to act as he should. That would be being a "puppet", which is a plan B.

For me, having an NPC yell at (or a backstory compel) my character "jump through that hoop", and then jumping through the hoop is much, much, much preferable to seizing control and having the avatar jump through the hoop of its own accord.

It's the difference between telling a story with a game, and telling a story with a series of movies interspersed within a video game.

EDIT: @Mewtarthio: True. But, "locked in a room with people talking" is, to me, better than "locked out of your character while people are talking".

Bottom Line: I like having control. I like role-playing, a given character, or a blank character, whether the game responds to or encourages it, or not. I don't like having control taken away, I don't like things that through me out of immersion. It occurs to me that it is not at all clear to me what I'm talking about any more. Convincing others to my opinion was never my objective, clearly explaining my opinion now seems hopeless. So go ahead and have fun however you like to have fun. :smallbiggrin:

[Top cat]

Oh hell no, I do not want to see that. Forcing me to take time out of the game to go to an inn or eat something or the like just to reset an otherwise-useless stat in order to avoid penalties is not fun in any way.
Arguably, dying isn't fun. The two examples where I've seen it implemented, it made me feel that my character was actually human. Being required to go to an inn would suck though, which is why I always played primary needs (oblivion) with a bedroll mod. That said, there ought to be a point to go into inns. Baldur's gate style "STOP SLEEPING IN THE STREETS" or inns simply being better than bedrolls could fix that.

I also think inventories should either be realistic, or unlimited. The focus on weight is a bit silly, space is far more important IMO. My post was long enough as it was though.

[Gnoman]

If you want realism, you would need to cover both space and weight. This would, of course, be something of a headache to manage, especially with the extremely simplified UIs that are so popular nowadays.

[Zevox]

Arguably, dying isn't fun.
No, but it's necessary to make the game challenging, or at least to make it possible to lose. There's no point in winning something you can never lose, after all.

On the flip side, there's no point to your suggestion unless the game is specifically going for a heavy emphasis on realism. Which might be fine for an individual game that advertises itself as such, but I wouldn't be among those playing that game personally. It certainly doesn't belong as anything near the standard of the entire RPG genre.

Zevox

[Top cat]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting every game should be like that. But I'd like to see a few (good) rpgs like that. Games would be pretty dull if they were all the same thing.

[Zevox]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting every game should be like that. But I'd like to see a few (good) rpgs like that. Games would be pretty dull if they were all the same thing.
Ah, that's a different matter entirely. Since the thread topic here is so broad, and you began your statement with a general reference to RPGs as a whole, I assumed you were arguing more broadly.

Zevox

[Callos_DeTerran]

Oh hell no, I do not want to see that. Forcing me to take time out of the game to go to an inn or eat something or the like just to reset an otherwise-useless stat in order to avoid penalties is not fun in any way. That only belongs in a game if one of the main points of it is a heavily emphasis on realism.

Zevox

I agree...to a point. Do I want to stop Shepard's dramatic space battle to eat a hot-dog or face crippling starvation penalties? No......Would I mind seeing Shepard eating lunch or something during a cutscene? Yes. Then Shepard feels like an actual person and not a complete cyborg...to use a Mass Effect example.

[Zevox]

I agree...to a point. Do I want to stop Shepard's dramatic space battle to eat a hot-dog or face crippling starvation penalties? No......Would I mind seeing Shepard eating lunch or something during a cutscene? Yes. Then Shepard feels like an actual person and not a complete cyborg...to use a Mass Effect example.
That is another thing entirely as well, and something I'd be perfectly fine with (assuming the scene wasn't there solely for the purpose of showing characters eating of course). Though personally for making Sheperd seem more like an actual person I'd make her an actual character instead of a blank-slate, but that's just me. :smallwink:

Zevox

[warty goblin]

I have to agree here. Waves of weak enemies have their uses, but they're frequently misused. It's even more grating when there's no real point to them - just a random bunch of enemies to pad out the length of a part of the game.

That's actually something I generally wish for: shorter, better paced games. I don't have that much time for gaming anymore, and having to do the same damn thing over and over in order to progress just bores me. I'd rather have ten, fifteen or twenty hours of diverse, varied and high quality content than sixty or eighty of of mediocre, repetitious stuff. If the short game is so good I must have more, I can always replay it and have a fantastic experience all over again. I don't even need branching paths, different customization options or any of that, I just need the experience to have been good enough to want to repeat.

And I actually will replay a very good game too, and get far more out of it than the bloated 'epic*.'


*Which I suspect stands for Editing Plainly Is Canceled.

[Terraoblivion]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd say if there's any way that you can allow the player to control the character during an exposition scene, or to cast it as a gameplay segment (and still deliver the exposition) than that should be done, because there's much more you can do to immerse the player. Even if the player can't change anything.
In my mind, game aren't meant to be "enjoyable to watch", they're meant to be enjoyable to play.

Here's the thing, for me and quite a few other people what you get when trying that isn't immersion at all. What you get is a boring cutscene that allows the player to ruin it by meandering around and not paying attention, because looking at a realistically animated person who just stands around talking isn't terribly interesting. There are many ways to integrate the narrative in the gameplay and the environments, but the guy standing still and talking without doing anything method is the worst one. It has nothing that really distinguishes it from a cutscene on a meaningful level, except for lacking the visual and aural flare of a cutscene and being hampered by engine limitations.

Sure you can run back and forth, distracting you from the actual content and making your character come off like a rude, obnoxious moron, but what does that truly add? All it seems to do is highlight the artifice of the experience by making your character behave in a way no real person would. So for me at least it breaks immersion whether it is derived from narrative or gameplay as it makes me behave in a ridiculous manner that makes the world of the game seem more artificial, while also depriving me of useful information.

[Top cat]

With regards to the food penalties and the like though, I was thinking of something heavily graduated and continuous. I'm not that great with words, but

suppose there is some hidden stat, s, with values ranging from 1 to 0 where 0 means death, and your effectiveness in some regard (for example, speed/attack strength) is proportional to s. Then let t be the time passed since you were full (t >= 0, eating food reduces t in a linear fashion). Decrease in s should be related to t exponentially, so some variation on s = -A(e^kt - 1)+1, where A and k are positive constants. For example, with A = 1 and k = 0.1 and t the time in days, the player would have a minor loss in effectiveness (about 10%) after one full day not eating anything, be a little over a third worse off after three whole days, two thirds or so after starving for 5 days, and die after a week (just an example). The character is pretty much fine at first, but they deteriorate more and more rapidly as time goes on. It wouldn't kill you to skip eating for a day or two if you're really busy, but like in real life, you can't put off eating for days on end and expect to be just fine.

To be honest though, the health thing is far more important to me. But to bring up STALKER again, the little things, like needing to eat, and getting drunk from vodka (used because vodka > radioactivity), and your carry weight having a serious effect on your stamina, made the game seem that much more real. Enemies shooting you through the walls, not so much.

[TheEmerged]

Narrow Pet Peeve: jumping puzzles. These were fun... when I was like 11 years old playing Pitfall on my friend's Atari with a joystick. If I never have to do one of these again, it will be too soon.

Broader Pet Peeve: the notion that a game is an RPG because the player gets levels.

[Jahkaivah]

Dialogue option abbreviations.

When my character is having an interactive conversation, especially one where what he or she says matters in the long run, there will come several points during the conversation where I am hit with the option to pick what my character says next.

Now I consider it fairly important to know exactly what my character is going to say in advance when I pick these options, with many things that ought to be taken into consideration with my choice of words such as the overall tone and the smaller implications of what is said.

I do not want entire sentences simplified to phrases at best, which has become an odd trend amongst recent RPG developers intent on fixing that which was never broken.

[Trazoi]

At odds with much of the thread here, but I would really like to see "save anywhere" systems be phased out in most cases. I generally prefer wither savepoints (the biggest virtue of which is reminding me to actually save) or autosaves. The TES/Fo3 "autosave on rest" is a fair compromise between the two.
I'd like this too, as it should be something the game manages itself instead of forcing the administration of saves on the player. Ideally the save system should be completely transparent to the player so they can play the game how it was meant to be without being thrown out of the flow by constantly worrying about whether they've backed up their current game state recently.

[Weezer]

Here's the thing, for me and quite a few other people what you get when trying that isn't immersion at all. What you get is a boring cutscene that allows the player to ruin it by meandering around and not paying attention, because looking at a realistically animated person who just stands around talking isn't terribly interesting. There are many ways to integrate the narrative in the gameplay and the environments, but the guy standing still and talking without doing anything method is the worst one. It has nothing that really distinguishes it from a cutscene on a meaningful level, except for lacking the visual and aural flare of a cutscene and being hampered by engine limitations.

Sure you can run back and forth, distracting you from the actual content and making your character come off like a rude, obnoxious moron, but what does that truly add? All it seems to do is highlight the artifice of the experience by making your character behave in a way no real person would. So for me at least it breaks immersion whether it is derived from narrative or gameplay as it makes me behave in a ridiculous manner that makes the world of the game seem more artificial, while also depriving me of useful information.

I think when this kind of thing is pulled off well (the already mentioned HL2 opening sequence is a good one) it is far superior to a cut-scene. However when it's done badly, when it's just a cut scene with camera control it's even worse than a normal cut scene. Leaving the character in a room with nothing happening but some dude jabbering on is a recipe for your character to jump around like a bunny on meth. Another problem with this is that you can't really skip it, which is practically *painful* the second time you play the game if the cut scene is of any length and intolerable if you play it even more than that.

So, all in all, like so many 'experimental' things in gaming, it's excellent when done well but it is hardly ever done well.


Actually I'd like to add unskippable cut-scenes to this list. They are admittedly pretty rare, but little is annoying as one. Same thing goes for tutorials (such as Oblivions) that drag on but are required every time you play. I've come to hate that damn sewer level.

[warty goblin]

I think when this kind of thing is pulled off well (the already mentioned HL2 opening sequence is a good one) it is far superior to a cut-scene. However when it's done badly, when it's just a cut scene with camera control it's even worse than a normal cut scene. Leaving the character in a room with nothing happening but some dude jabbering on is a recipe for your character to jump around like a bunny on meth. Another problem with this is that you can't really skip it, which is practically *painful* the second time you play the game if the cut scene is of any length and intolerable if you play it even more than that.

So, all in all, like so many 'experimental' things in gaming, it's excellent when done well but it is hardly ever done well.
I think I prefer the cutscene approach anymore. Well directed it can convey the emotion of the scene far better than the non-interactive version can. When it's storytime and I still have control of the character I'm left with basically either standing there or behaving like an idiot. I'm not the sort of person who generally finds the second option all that interesting, and the first is just as passive as a cutscene, but with much worse camera direction.

Mind you the cutscene should still be skippable, particularly after the first time you see it.

(I'd also like more games to have pausable cutscenes, because sometimes I have to get up and do something.)



Actually I'd like to add unskippable cut-scenes to this list. They are admittedly pretty rare, but little is annoying as one. Same thing goes for tutorials (such as Oblivions) that drag on but are required every time you play. I've come to hate that damn sewer level.
Just save the game right before exiting. Then you never have to do it again.

Well, until you lose your saves anyway.

[Terraoblivion]

I'd honestly consider the HL2 opening to be different from being stuck in a room where some person is just talking. The former is you doing something that has an independent purpose, while exposition also happens and you have a goal for what to do yourself. The latter is somewhere your entire objective is listening to the exposition. I'm all for the former, just like I'm all for using the environment to help tell the story in the background as normal, active gameplay is being pursued. It's just that some scenes that it is hard to make games with any kind of narrative without just can't be done well without cutscenes or interactive conversations, though the latter definitely benefit from dynamic camera angles and expressive characters.

[Aerodynamik]

But books are not video games, and video games are not books. Books have no player interaction. They are passive entertainment. (Well, except for choose-your-own-adventure books, I guess.) Video games have an interactive component.

Video games do not need stories. I agree that when they do have stories, they should put some effort and thought into them. But sacrificing gameplay for narrative just seems absurd to me. Yes, having to constantly change out weapons and armor breaks up the narrative, but that is a gameplay element. It's a reward system, as well as a balancing mechanic.

Well I guess that the main reasons that I play most games is not for the 'game' aspect, but because I look for immersion and emotional investment in the game's story and game world. So you should probably just disregard my opinion, since I'm only playing video games until first person, fully interactive, 20+ hour long movies came out.

[Ogremindes]

One thing that I hate is mini-games inserted into a questline. Especially the main questline. Ran into it the other day in Cargo. I did not buy this game to play Bad Controls Guitar Hero Clone, dammit! (to make it even more 'fun' it was in the Obligatory Bad Underwater Stage).

[factotum]

Re: inventory systems--I don't have a problem with them if they're done well. The inventory system in Might and Magic VI, for example, had a single inventory sheet containing all your gear; everything was represented by big, clear graphics, so you didn't have to squint to determine whether you were looking at a crossbow or fossilised dog poop. It's probably one of the best RPG inventory systems I've ever seen, and while it still allows you to do unrealistic things like carry several full suits of armour, it doesn't intrude into normal gameplay too much.

An example of an inventory system done badly would be Skyrim. I'm really struggling to think how they could have made inventory management worse in that game...

[Kurrel]

Aerodynamik has largely nailed down an issue that constantly sets gamers against each other.

I'm of the same opinion as him, in that I despise games that have no narrative. However, the other side of what is lumped together under the title of 'games' is tests of skill and competence and these are just as important to a great many people.

Games can be stories of make-believe and amazement or contests of epic proportions, but often try to straddle this divide and end up doing both badly.

[KingofMadCows]

Game mechanic:
Collect/kill X items/monsters quests
Infinite/worthless money

Story/plot cliché:
Evil undead
Romances

Gameplay not matching up with cutscenes, especially cutscene deaths.

[The Succubus]

An example of an inventory system done badly would be Skyrim. I'm really struggling to think how they could have made inventory management worse in that game...

Three words: Mass Effect 1.

[Thiyr]

A consistent favorite I'd love to see disappear: illogical, inconsistent, or inexplicable barriers. Be it in New Vegas, Monteriggioni, Ostagar, West London, or otherwise, I'm sick of wooden doors that can resist high explosives, waist high fences that cannot be jumped or climbed over despite obvious hand/footholds, and small hills that have been claimed for the Invisible Empire with their magical steel flags of impenetrability. Cover the doors in rubble if you need to. Make the walls higher, or set them on fire, or make the character have a deathly fear of water whilst on an island. But at least make it less out-of-nowhere. I'm a hero with the firepower of a small army and the capacity to kill a large one. I have proven myself to be quite capable of random acts of destruction. but my 12 gauge skeleton key can't open a single door anywhere?

Similarly, morality systems as currently implemented. I like the idea that your actions affect your standing and what you can do. But however you call it, it's always been implemented kinda stiffly. As a friend of mine put it in reference to Fable, "Your game makes me be a better person than I otherwise would be, it doesn't allow me to marry two women, have children by both, and then give the children weapons and make them fight to the death to determine which mother I cannibalize." Not that I want to be actually capable of doing that, admittedly, but it's gotten too much spotlight, and it's too well defined. I'd prefer hearing some chatter about what I've done, see people react to what I do, but never quite see whether the universe considers me a Jedi or a Sith.I don't want to grow horns and/or a halo because I gave an orphaned dog some change so it could buy itself a bone.

And even the system as it is might be salvageable if it weren't so transparent in the options. It's not hard to tell the difference between "offer to help the starving homeless leper" and "spit in his face, laugh at his plight, then dump a vial of plague-juices on him", but that's what I end up seeing so often. That is not interesting, that's just over the top. Make morality a bit more muddied. Make the good option not always obvious, and make evil a choice that isn't just waxed mustaches and maidens tied to railroad tracks. Make it decide more than just the color of your character's spontaneously generated light from nowhere. Give JC Denton the ability to side with UNATCO. Give us more opportunities to make choices like keeping or abandoning the Sword of Aeons pre Lost Chapters (I never thought I'd find a good morality choice in fable until right now).

Though to comment on other stuff, I don't mind quicktime events so long as they're not gonna cause a gameover if you mess up once during a short time frame (I'm looking at you, RE4's knife fight against Krauser). I don't mind cutscenes if they're interesting and get something across that wouldn't work well in gameplay, or that gameplay would almost guarantee cutting short without some arbitrary extender thrown in until exposition finishes. Just finished Assassin's Creed 2, which I think did a decent job of this for most of the game. There's little good way to do the induction to the order scene with gameplay, but there's a good deal of "walk with this person and hear some exposition" that's not bad either. It gets you someplace, gives you something to listen to, and doesn't force you to sit and just watch.

As far as cutscene vs interactivity and preexisting characters, I will reference Metal Gear Solid 3. Yes, it had mostly uninteractive cutscenes. But the death of The Boss is probably the most stirring example of mixing the two. You can't avoid the situation. You can't avoid the outcome. You can't change how the character reacts. But the player can either pull the trigger, or they can just watch it happen. But the player still enacts something within the scene.

[Toastkart]

The Holy Trinity of MMOs should go die face-down in a ditch filled with it's own blood and guts, absolutely. I do however disagree that poor AI and player elitism go hand in hand to it. Poor AI is gonna happen regardless, but that's a problem that comes from the taunt-meter model (which I suppose the trinity does enable somewhat). Player elitism usually stems from 'us vs them' situations. While the trinity causes this to some degree (e.g. "Healers are so lazy", "DPSers are stupid", "Tank was asleep", etc), I'm unsure wether removing the Trinity would have a noticeable effect when you still have things like "Horde vs Alliance" to keep the fires stoked.

The reason I think it should die is simply that it's boring. I like the idea of tactical combat roles, but the Tank/DPS/Healer model is too limited to offer interesting variations.

The reason I said poor ai is precisely because of taunt/threat meter models. In a threat model, mob ai is based on a single variable, and mobs don't work together at all, or at least not intelligently. Guild Wars was a step in the right direction. In gw, aggro was based on a variety of factors, including distance, armor, health, etc. It wasn't impossible to exploit, but it doesn't require tank and spank tactics to win. Similarly, mobs in gw work in groups--monk mobs heal and prot their group, mobs with res skills will raise fallen allies, and some skills are used in concert, although not as extensively as could potentially be possible.

My use of the word elitism may have not been the best choice of words. What I meant was equal parts 'we don't want your class in our group' and hybrid classes being forced by the community to only employ part of their playstyle, especially at endgame.

As for the us vs them attitude, I agree. Guild Wars 2 seems to be doing everything it can to remove competition among players, except where pvp is concerned, and pvp is wholly separated from the pve area of the game. Hopefully they can foster a very cooperative community.



An example of an inventory system done badly would be Skyrim. I'm really struggling to think how they could have made inventory management worse in that game...
I actually liked the inventory system in skyrim. Each category was clearly labeled, items in the category were alphabetized, and I could create a separate list of commonly used items. I thought it worked very well.


Game mechanic:
Infinite/worthless money

Story/plot cliché:
Romances

Gameplay not matching up with cutscenes, especially cutscene deaths.

I can agree in some cases. I would prefer something closer to a balanced progression of wealth. In Fallout 3, up to about lvl 10, I never had enough money to get the essential things I needed. After lvl 10, I had more money than I knew what to do with.

As far as romances go, I don't mind them when they are done well, which is rare. In this sense, I think me1 did a better job than me2, which I thought was fairly light on companion conversations as a whole. What I dislike is when romance partners are chosen for you, as in knights of the old republic 2 and neverwinter nights 2.


Similarly, morality systems as currently implemented. I like the idea that your actions affect your standing and what you can do. But however you call it, it's always been implemented kinda stiffly. As a friend of mine put it in reference to Fable, "Your game makes me be a better person than I otherwise would be, it doesn't allow me to marry two women, have children by both, and then give the children weapons and make them fight to the death to determine which mother I cannibalize." Not that I want to be actually capable of doing that, admittedly, but it's gotten too much spotlight, and it's too well defined. I'd prefer hearing some chatter about what I've done, see people react to what I do, but never quite see whether the universe considers me a Jedi or a Sith.I don't want to grow horns and/or a halo because I gave an orphaned dog some change so it could buy itself a bone.

The mass effect series has taken some steps in the right direction, but I don't think it is there yet. In me1, it was mostly fine except you needed to spend skill points in renegade/paragon to be able to unlock conversation options. In me2, they did away with this, but replaced it with an unseen background check that compared your current renegade/paragon score against the total possible score you could have gotten up to that point. Such a system basically forces you to play to one extreme or the other through 90% of the game, or risk losing conversation options.

At first glance, DragonAge: Origins had an interesting system where each character had their own influence meter. Then I found out how broken the system was. Every time I tried to deceive my opponents, my companions got on my case and I lost influence. Every time I didn't lick their backside or agree with their philosophy, I lost influence. Joke with a character, gain influence. Joke too much with a character, lose influence. And then I could buy their love with gifts.


And even the system as it is might be salvageable if it weren't so transparent in the options. It's not hard to tell the difference between "offer to help the starving homeless leper" and "spit in his face, laugh at his plight, then dump a vial of plague-juices on him", but that's what I end up seeing so often. That is not interesting, that's just over the top. Make morality a bit more muddied. Make the good option not always obvious, and make evil a choice that isn't just waxed mustaches and maidens tied to railroad tracks. Make it decide more than just the color of your character's spontaneously generated light from nowhere. Give JC Denton the ability to side with UNATCO. Give us more opportunities to make choices like keeping or abandoning the Sword of Aeons pre Lost Chapters (I never thought I'd find a good morality choice in fable until right now).

I agree to an extent, but one thing I would like to see is for the 'good' option to come back and bite the character in the ass. I would also like to see a neutral option that is equally recognized and amounts to more than 'I do some good over here, and kick some puppies over there to balance it out'. Kotor 2 had some nice neutral dialogue choices regarding the Exile's prior relationship with the Jedi Council, but those type of dialogue choices disappeared about halfway through the game.

On the subject of the cutscene debate, I don't mind them, but I would greatly prefer when they take into account character and party ability. An especially noticeable example occurs during me2's lair of the shadow broker dlc. Shepard tackles a boss through a window and they fall to the ground. It made for a dramatic scene, but I always wondered how Garrus could so utterly fail to not snipe her in the back of the head as she ran away. Or for that matter, why Shepard didn't use any one of a number of abilities that would have taken her out more effectively than tackling her and letting her run away.

Limitations of the technology, I suppose, along with a different focus on character. The way I see it, there are two basic types of rpgs--those where your character is meant to be "Your character" and those where your character is meant to be a character in an interactive movie, and you just get to play the interactive parts. I prefer the former, and I prefer when games support that to the best of their ability.

[Yora]

The greatest thing for MMOs would be to allow players of characters at all stages of advancement to participate in all parts of the game.
And if my level 10 thief deals 1 damage with his throwing knives while the level 50 characters pull the majority of the weight, just being able to participate and not being a burden would be a huge step forward.
As I've read someone mentioning some years ago, MMOs are supposed to let you play with your friends, but you can only do that if you all have the same character level.

And it shouldn't be so difficult. Just make armor, hit point, attack chance, and damage scale much more slower and instead advance characters through special abilities. You can take everything down with just massive waves of low-level characters, but you can do so much more quickly and easier if you have high level characters who can stun or slow enemies, heal allies, or use party buffs.
There is absolutely no reason why my level 65 character must be unable to play with my friends level 70 character. Go there with six level 50 characters, or with six level 50 and two level 30 characters. In most games I've seen, the later is simply impossible, but I don't see why the former shouldn't be possible? Sure, it's not as effective as getting eight level 50 characters, but if you have played MMOs, you have probably experienced more than enough cases in which you had wished you could just try it with a sub-optimal group instead of waiting for hours to get someone of the appropriate class and level the game demands you to take with you.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

City of Heroes actually does the 'team with anyone of any level' thing well. Basically when you join a team your level is set to the same level as the team leader. That is, your damage, HP, etc etc are set to that level. If you go down in levels you lose the abilities you had at higher levels, and conversely you don't gain further abilities if you gain these virtual levels.

It works pretty well, and a 20 or 30 level spread in an 8-man team isn't unusual.

[GolemsVoice]

To the people disliking cutscenes: Cutscenes have another simple reason. They allow the game makers to make a good game, yet still render key scenes in a much better way than by just telling them in-game. Because cutscenes tend to be short, they can turn up the engine to levels that would be impossible either financially, time-wise, or because of the hardware, or they can just make a rendered movie like Blizzard does. Cutscenes where you can't control the player can be exactly coreographed, making things possible that wouldn't be possible in-game, etc.

Still, you can have both, but that would require quicktime events which some people loathe. For example, you are driving in your car, when suddenly, a monster ambushes you and pushes you aside, over the edge of a cliff. Quickly tap F to make your character grab a branch to keep from falling to his death. If done correctly, i.e. if the player is warned (not "oh, nice-looking cutscenewoaaaaaah") it can really feel like you struggle just like your character does to grab that branch.

[Yora]

Though at the same time, such things can also be really great if you stick as close to the normal gameplay as possible.
Modern Warfare 2 has a nice moment near the end, where you're a literarily driving shotgun in a jeep fleeing from dozens of trucks with enemies shoting at you and trying to catch a cargo plane. And 10 seconds before reaching the ramp, the driver get shot and you have to grasp the wheel and steer the car up the ramp while the plane takes off, while stying in first person view all the time.

I think the whole trick is to get these things fit seamlessly into the rest of the game. When there is story time and play time, it get's quite annoying. As much as I love Metal Gear Solid, this makes it really hard to give the games a chance to grow on their strong sides.

[Zen Master]

The thing I could most easily do entirely without? First Person View. I can say in all possible honesty that I don't think any game is improved in the slightest by making it first person.

There are a couple of exceptions. Racing games, for instance. But then - those are generally games I don't play anyways.

[memnarch]

The thing I could most easily do entirely without? First Person View. I can say in all possible honesty that I don't think any game is improved in the slightest by making it first person.

There are a couple of exceptions. Racing games, for instance. But then - those are generally games I don't play anyways.

Metroid Prime. I can't think of a better way to realistically (in-game/universe) display the current active weapon, health, ammo (missile) count, hazardous environment meter, etc. than with the First Person HUD display.

[Aerodynamik]

Aerodynamik has largely nailed down an issue that constantly sets gamers against each other.

I'm of the same opinion as him, in that I despise games that have no narrative. However, the other side of what is lumped together under the title of 'games' is tests of skill and competence and these are just as important to a great many people.

Games can be stories of make-believe and amazement or contests of epic proportions, but often try to straddle this divide and end up doing both badly.

^This

And really, the ones that are the best of both worlds are few and far between. Portal does this well. Half-Life games do this well. I remember when I first played Half-Life 2, my favorite parts were the opening scene of the game, where you just talked to people for for half an hour, interrupted by a short action set piece where you don't shoot anyone, and then back to talking. And in my mind, it was one of the coolest things I had ever done in a video game.

But I went to a friends house the other day, and he opened up some game that he had never played before. There was a half hour opening sequence full of exposition which I thought was cool. A good way to set the stage. And he could not stand it. All he wanted to do was get to punching dudes in the face as fast as he could. The game delivered, but only after he was bored out of his skull for half and hour. We wanted totally different things from out games.

So like I said. I'm just waiting for some branch of the industry to split off and start making interactive movies, and then I'll leave all of you 'actual gamers' alone.

Speaking of which, since I don't have console to play it on, how did Heavy Rain turn out?

[Zen Master]

Metroid Prime. I can't think of a better way to realistically (in-game/universe) display the current active weapon, health, ammo (missile) count, hazardous environment meter, etc. than with the First Person HUD display.

I'm sure you could say the same of basically any first person game in existance. It misses the point I'm trying to make.

See, it's true you cannot make a 1st person game without 1st person graphics. I just happen to think that no game is really much improved by that. With, as said, the exception of certain kinds of simulaters - cars, spaceflight and so on.

Then again, my post was as kind of a joke - striking the entirety of the most popular type of games around might be seen as amusingly insane. While it still remains true that I for one wouldn't miss it.

[Lord Seth]

Oh hell no, I do not want to see that. Forcing me to take time out of the game to go to an inn or eat something or the like just to reset an otherwise-useless stat in order to avoid penalties is not fun in any way. That only belongs in a game if one of the main points of it is a heavily emphasis on realism.Or a game strongly focused on survival, like NetHack. Though admittedly, eating is pretty fast so you don't really have to "take time" out of the game to do it.

[Comet]

I'm sure you could say the same of basically any first person game in existance. It misses the point I'm trying to make.

See, it's true you cannot make a 1st person game without 1st person graphics. I just happen to think that no game is really much improved by that. With, as said, the exception of certain kinds of simulaters - cars, spaceflight and so on.

Then again, my post was as kind of a joke - striking the entirety of the most popular type of games around might be seen as amusingly insane. While it still remains true that I for one wouldn't miss it.

One could argue that the Prime games are, in fact, badass power armour simulators. The HUD doesn't just float there, it's part of the visor of the most single-minded bounty hunter in the galaxy and the player happens to be behind that visor. It's really immersive, it is.

And that's what the first person is there for, in games. Immersion. You touched on it by mentioning simulators but it's true for many other games ,as well. Metroid Prime being a prime example.

[Zevox]

The thing I could most easily do entirely without? First Person View. I can say in all possible honesty that I don't think any game is improved in the slightest by making it first person.
Agreed. That's not going to happen, but I'd be quite happy if it did.


Metroid Prime. I can't think of a better way to realistically (in-game/universe) display the current active weapon, health, ammo (missile) count, hazardous environment meter, etc. than with the First Person HUD display.
I see absolutely no reason why you need a "realistic" or "in-universe" display for those things. Just use a simple HUD like just about every third-person game in existence does.

Zevox

[Brother Oni]

Speaking of which, since I don't have console to play it on, how did Heavy Rain turn out?

According to wikipedia, the game did very well, both in sales and in praise.

From my perspective, it has a wonderfully interactive atmosphere and probably the coolest computer OS I have ever seen. The story is great and the acting and plot is compelling, although a little cliched.

Gameplay however, if you're not a fan of QTEs, then the game is going to be incredible frustrating as that all it basically is.

The closest example I can think of is the old Dragon's Lair games, except with better graphics, more lenient gameplay and more expansive environments to explore.

Given your desire for interactive movies, this is probably the closest offering that's currently available.

[GungHo]

I'm a fan of MMORPGs, but I could do without gold-sinks. Then again, what the hell else are you going to do with all that money? I'm aware of the economic implications of not having "rent" in the game, but I still don't like it. Sure, tax the customizations, like putting flames on your mount, but the basic stuff (like having a mount in the first place) isn't necessary.

I'm also an unfan of the concept of the hybrid tax. If it's that big a deal, make everyone hybrid-capable. I have no problem with someone being able to flip a bit on their character to go from full DPS to full Tank or full healer. I'm even ok with giving them "halfsies" or "quarters" as an option. It's not like having the ability to go from one spec to the other makes you competent at playing the second spec anyway.

[GolemsVoice]

See, it's true you cannot make a 1st person game without 1st person graphics. I just happen to think that no game is really much improved by that. With, as said, the exception of certain kinds of simulaters - cars, spaceflight and so on.


But why? I on the other hand like first-person better than thrid-person, because I can exactly point where I want to look, and there's less camera-awkwardness.

[Zevox]

But why? I on the other hand like first-person better than thrid-person, because I can exactly point where I want to look, and there's less camera-awkwardness.
That's one thing I personally dislike about first-person mechanics: the fact that the camera is tied directly to the direction your character is facing, and cannot be moved independently of that. That makes it more awkward and very annoying from where I'm sitting. Plus you see less in first-person than in third, for obvious reasons.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

I'm sure you could say the same of basically any first person game in existance. It misses the point I'm trying to make.

See, it's true you cannot make a 1st person game without 1st person graphics. I just happen to think that no game is really much improved by that. With, as said, the exception of certain kinds of simulaters - cars, spaceflight and so on.

Third person STALKER is just a horrible, horrible idea. It's right up there with putting a healthbar in ArmA.

Come to think of it I rather wish more games would try health systems like ArmA's, which basically reduces to: don't get shot. Bullet to the leg? Good luck running. Bullet to both legs? Good luck walking. Bullet to an arm? I hope you weren't thinking of aiming precisely in the near future, and if you happen to get hit in the head, well... The best part is that you only really get a sense of the injury by looking at it in first person and there's no magic bandage to make it go away. You can keep yourself or another from bleeding to death, but that's about it.

It's certainly not something I'd want in every game, mind, but it does lead to some memorable battles.


That's one thing I personally dislike about first-person mechanics: the fact that the camera is tied directly to the direction your character is facing, and cannot be moved independently of that. That makes it more awkward and very annoying from where I'm sitting. Plus you see less in first-person than in third, for obvious reasons.

Zevox

That's very common, but not universal in first person games. ArmA, Red Orchestra and Dark Messiah use a system you can look around to some degree before moving the camera. In Dark Messiah for instance you don't actually turn until you're pretty much looking over your own shoulder, and thanks to the full body visibility, you can see said shoulder. ArmA and RO's implementation isn't that extreme (although ArmA's is adjustable), but still decouple facing and camera movement.

[Weezer]

For those advocating the removal of 1st person from games, how would you ever have accurate shooting (or any other form of aiming) in the third person? All games that I've seen that are third person have horrific shooting, they're forced to use a sticky crosshair or some other form of auto-aim to compensate. Third person has its place, don't get me wrong, it's great for platformers, some RPGs (it all depends on the mechanics) as well as plenty of other games but there are just some whole genres of games that wouldn't work if they were forced into the 3rd person.

[warty goblin]

For those advocating the removal of 1st person from games, how would you ever have accurate shooting (or any other form of aiming) in the third person? All games that I've seen that are third person have horrific shooting, they're forced to use a sticky crosshair or some other form of auto-aim to compensate. Third person has its place, don't get me wrong, it's great for platformers, some RPGs (it all depends on the mechanics) as well as plenty of other games but there are just some whole genres of games that wouldn't work if they were forced into the 3rd person.

Yeah, I rather like being able to shoot dudes at 150 meters with a bolt action rifle using only iron sight in Red Orchestra. There's no way that's going down in a third person shooter, and it's hella good. Well, not with accurate ballistics anyway.

[Zevox]

For those advocating the removal of 1st person from games, how would you ever have accurate shooting (or any other form of aiming) in the third person?
I have little care about that, since I dislike shooters, but there are plenty of third-person shooters out there, some of them highly acclaimed and very popular (i.e. Gears of War, Mass Effect), so this tells me that this is perfectly possible.

Zevox

[Makensha]

Tons of useless items I need to pick up anyway so I can sell it? This is seriously my biggest problem with Action RPGs. I just want to get items actually worth considering...

Empty levels. Times when you level and it has no real benefit.

Open worlds. Sorta. Give me a way to get to the action without all the walking in between. DA 2 would have been more enjoyable if I could just auto-jump to the fighting part.

Mediocre Melee Combat. Get it right, or don't bother. I'm looking at YOU, Elder Scrolls. Zeno Clash's only draw was that it actually TRIED to give good melee combat. But this will not progress without more Zeno Clashes.

Overworld. I just want to kill things. Stop with all the senseless walking.

Windows Live/"Gaming Services." Who are they serving? Of course, there is an argument made that these help with piracy, but that doesn't make my experience any better.

[warty goblin]

I have little care about that, since I dislike shooters, but there are plenty of third-person shooters out there, some of them highly acclaimed and very popular (i.e. Gears of War, Mass Effect), so this tells me that this is perfectly possible.

Zevox

They really aren't about precise gunfire over challenging quantities of terrain though. I mean most of the time in a third person shooter your target is at the other end of what amounts to a very short corridor or moderately sized room, and most of the rest of the time you're furnished with a sniper rifle that snaps to first person when zoomed anyways.

Now this is very true of a lot of first person shooters as well, but there are quite a few that bump up the engagement range significantly. Using only the most basic optics in Crysis for example there are some sections where engagement ranges can get pretty long, while games like ArmA can have half kilometer or more exchanges of fire.

[Weezer]

I have little care about that, since I dislike shooters, but there are plenty of third-person shooters out there, some of them highly acclaimed and very popular (i.e. Gears of War, Mass Effect), so this tells me that this is perfectly possible.

Zevox

Neither of those games makes any in depth use of precision or accuracy when shooting. 3rd person shooters tend to have very restricted areas where the enemies can come from and don't require much more aiming than "point in general direction of enemy and fire, they'll be hit". The exceptions are as Warty Goblin noted, when you are given sniper rifles, and even then they need to switch you to a 1st person view to get any accuracy. When compared to games like ARMA and Red Orchestra those games are practically not shooters at all. I'm not saying they can't be fun, they can be, but they simply aren't about skillful gunfire.


Also, just because you don't like a genre of games, doesn't mean you should wish that the very mechanic that enables their existence disappears forever, that's just inconsiderate.

EDIT: I'd just like to second Makensha's point about melee combat, we really need to get rid of the piss poor excuse for melee that have abounded in games, there needs to be more control than normal swing, power swing and block. For gods sake Mount and Blade has been out for almost 4 years now, how has no one even come close to that combat since?

[warty goblin]

Also, just because you don't like a genre of games, doesn't mean you should wish that the very mechanic that enables their existence disappears forever, that's just inconsiderate.
And while many games are FPSs, it's not like all games are becoming them. Unlike stupid unlock bars taking over everything. I don't mind them, but in a lot of games they add basically nothing.


EDIT: I'd just like to second Makensha's point about melee combat, we really need to get rid of the piss poor excuse for melee that have abounded in games, there needs to be more control than normal swing, power swing and block. For gods sake Mount and Blade has been out for almost 4 years now, how has no one even come close to that combat since?
Mount & Blade is a game where a couple guys with clubs can take down your totally pimped out high level warrior if you aren't careful. This is apparently anathema to a lot of game design; I personally get a kick out of it.

Now if only they'd make Mount & Blade with winding...

[Zevox]

Also, just because you don't like a genre of games, doesn't mean you should wish that the very mechanic that enables their existence disappears forever, that's just inconsiderate.
How about I simply wish it would disappear from genres that I actually want to play, then? Bethesda games, for example - I might actually be willing to play the Elder Scrolls games for more than the brief periods I spent with Morrowind and Oblivion if they weren't using first-person mechanics. Granted I probably still wouldn't be a big fan, since I don't like the sandbox style of game design, but the first-person gameplay is the straw that breaks the camel's back there, and makes them some of the very few RPGs that I actually won't play.

Zevox

[Weezer]

And while many games are FPSs, it's not like all games are becoming them. Unlike stupid unlock bars taking over everything. I don't mind them, but in a lot of games they add basically nothing.


Mount & Blade is a game where a couple guys with clubs can take down your totally pimped out high level warrior if you aren't careful. This is apparently anathema to a lot of game design; I personally get a kick out of it.

Now if only they'd make Mount & Blade with winding...

Didn't mean to imply that all games are becoming FPSes or that all (or even most) games should be locked into a 1st person view, just that a significant subset of games wouldn't exist if a 1st person view was eliminated.


The thing is that in addition to having a much more fragile health system than most games tend to have, M&B is one of the few games where player skill really matters in melee. It can make the difference between getting clubbed down by 3 peasants, or being able to cut your way through a mob of 20 of them. This is something that is far more prevalent in shooters, mostly because mouse accuracy and reflexes are far more easy to translate into improved in game accuracy and reaction time for guns than they are for swords.

That is one disconnect I have with most gamers it seems, I want my level 20 guy in M&B to be hurt badly or even killed by a lucky crossbowman, I want to die from one or two rifle shots in Red Orchestra. Oh well, so long as a subset of games that scratches that itch still exist, I wont complain too much.

Though one question, what is "winding"?


How about I simply wish it would disappear from genres that I actually want to play, then? Bethesda games, for example - I might actually be willing to play the Elder Scrolls games for more than the brief periods I spent with Morrowind and Oblivion if they weren't using first-person mechanics. Granted I probably still wouldn't be a big fan, since I don't like the sandbox style of game design, but the first-person gameplay is the straw that breaks the camel's back there, and makes them some of the very few RPGs that I actually won't play.

Zevox

What I wish is that more developers did a better job at making both 1st and 3rd person views playable, because while many games let you switch, usually only one of the two actually works right. This is due to the fact that I personally find 3rd person viewpoint clunky and hard to be precise with. This is purely personal preference of course, barring a few outlying cases neither of the two mechanics are objectively better than the other, just wish that there was the choice, so people like me who prefer 1st person can enjoy the game just as much as others who prefer 3rd person (and vice versa). This is actually one of the reasons I stopped playing the Witcher, just couldn't get used to 3rd person combat.

[Thiyr]

Neither of those games makes any in depth use of precision or accuracy when shooting. 3rd person shooters tend to have very restricted areas where the enemies can come from and don't require much more aiming than "point in general direction of enemy and fire, they'll be hit". The exceptions are as Warty Goblin noted, when you are given sniper rifles, and even then they need to switch you to a 1st person view to get any accuracy. When compared to games like ARMA and Red Orchestra those games are practically not shooters at all. I'm not saying they can't be fun, they can be, but they simply aren't about skillful gunfire.

Having not played ARMA, Red Orchestra, or other games emphasising that level of realism, I can't say much, but it depends on the kind of shooter we're talking about, I'd say. I'd consider, for instance, Resident Evil 4 to have a fair necessity for more skillful gunfire than just "fire in their direction". Fire at the arm, they'll drop their weapon. Hit the leg, and they'll drop to the ground for a bit (allowing for SUPLEX TIMEEEE). Admittedly, enemies have scripted locations for most of the game, but still, not quite as easy as it could be.

[Starwulf]

Just an amusing observation here, having fully read this thread, if we took every single mechanic people didn't like, and implemented it, we would officially not have video games anymore ^^ I think we can officially say our forums dislikes apparently cover the breadth and width of video gamedom.

[Weezer]

Just an amusing observation here, having fully read this thread, if we took every single mechanic people didn't like, and implemented it, we would officially not have video games anymore ^^ I think we can officially say our forums dislikes apparently cover the breadth and width of video gamedom.

Heh, that's very true. I guess it's a good thing there are so many games, more than enough variety for everyone to be happy.:smallsmile:

[Zevox]

What I wish is that more developers did a better job at making both 1st and 3rd person views playable, because while many games let you switch, usually only one of the two actually works right.
"Many" games do that :smallconfused: ? The only ones I've ever encountered that tried to do that were Bethesda's. And yeah, their 3rd-person viewpoint did not work like an actual 3rd-person viewpoint should, instead using first-person mechanics just with a zoomed-out camera, which at times actually made them harder to play. 'Twould be much better if they had a proper third-person alternative.


This is due to the fact that I personally find 3rd person viewpoint clunky and hard to be precise with.
Funny, I'd say exactly the same thing about first-person mechanics. Especially for melee combat. At least for shooting that perspective makes some sense, but for melee... ugh. The contrast between my time attempting to play a melee character in Fallout 3 and my time spent with good action games like Devil May Cry or The Legend of Zelda is like night and day.

Zevox

[endoperez]

How about I simply wish it would disappear from genres that I actually want to play, then? Bethesda games, for example - I might actually be willing to play the Elder Scrolls games for more than the brief periods I spent with Morrowind and Oblivion if they weren't using first-person mechanics. Granted I probably still wouldn't be a big fan, since I don't like the sandbox style of game design, but the first-person gameplay is the straw that breaks the camel's back there, and makes them some of the very few RPGs that I actually won't play.

I didn't like Morrowind either, but it does have a 3rd-person view. IIRC there's a button (Tab, perhaps?) that toggles between 1st-person and 3rd-person view.

[warty goblin]

Didn't mean to imply that all games are becoming FPSes or that all (or even most) games should be locked into a 1st person view, just that a significant subset of games wouldn't exist if a 1st person view was eliminated.

I never thought you did. I just thought it worth commenting that they were hardly taking over the entire industry.



The thing is that in addition to having a much more fragile health system than most games tend to have, M&B is one of the few games where player skill really matters in melee. It can make the difference between getting clubbed down by 3 peasants, or being able to cut your way through a mob of 20 of them. This is something that is far more prevalent in shooters, mostly because mouse accuracy and reflexes are far more easy to translate into improved in game accuracy and reaction time for guns than they are for swords.
Indeed. Dark Messiah actually does the same thing, albeit with a very different system. Once you get good at precision delimbing strikes, the entire game is suddenly very different. By which I mean better.


That is one disconnect I have with most gamers it seems, I want my level 20 guy in M&B to be hurt badly or even killed by a lucky crossbowman, I want to die from one or two rifle shots in Red Orchestra. Oh well, so long as a subset of games that scratches that itch still exist, I wont complain too much.
I want this in a subset of the game I play. There's some dynamics and atmospheres improved by high lethality, others that are not.


Though one question, what is "winding"?

Short version:
Winding is when you move your sword against your enemy's to gain a leverage advantage in order to (hopefully) hit them.
Long version:

Suppose for instance you and I stood facing each other, each holding a sword (say something like this (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-regent-xviiia.htm), held in both hands) nearly vertically at the right side of his/her head. Both of us have our left foot forwards. We strike at the same time, bringing the sword downwards and cutting from right to left, while stepping forwards with our right feet. The blades strike.

At this point in a videogame the blow is considered blocked, the blades spring apart, and we return to a neutral stance. Reality is, not surprisingly, much more complicated.

Sword combat, particularly winding, is all about leverage. A sword, aside from being three feet of steely death, is also three feet of lever. It's easy to push the point of a sword around, because the entire blade acts as a lever against the person holding the hilt, and hard to shift the sword by pushing near the hilt because you have much less leverage. It helps to mentally divide the blade into a strong half, from the hilt to midway along the blade, and a weak half, from the halfway mark to the tip. So if I'm trying to push your sword around with mine, I want to use the strong of my blade against the weak of yours. I want to do this because with good leverage I can hit you while our blades are still touching; thanks to my better leverage you cannot stop or redirect my attack.

In our simple little case however I may not be in a position to do this. Hence winding. In this case the easiest winding is to lift my sword from in front of me towards the left side of my head, all while keeping the point aimed at you. Unless you respond the strong of my blade will now be against the weak of yours, and I can thrust through your guard at your face or chest.

[Partysan]

Though one question, what is "winding"?

Winding is an advanced type of sword technique where the blades stay in contact which each other (binding) and the opponents basically feel where the pressure goes and try to get their blade around the other's to attack (winding).
EDIT: Ninja'd by a more detailed explanation. Well played.
Honestly though, I'd be content if they introduced Counters and Close Combat. Winding would be a bit much to ask for in a non-duel-centered game.

Generally, I dislike primitive combat systems in melee centric games. If fighting is what I'm doing the most in your game, then it should give me something to do besides pressing attack and occasionally running in a certain direction. Yes Skyrim I love you, but you're not innocent there either.
Coming from that angle I dislike hit points and fast healing (outside of magic maybe). I think combat should be more about not getting injured than surviving lots of injuries, with injury actually having consequences.

I also have to join the croud lamenting morality systems. It would make for a much better result if just the characters affected or knowing of your actions reacted according to their views instead of some cosmic deed-o-meter measuring your morality.

[Zevox]

I didn't like Morrowind either, but it does have a 3rd-person view. IIRC there's a button (Tab, perhaps?) that toggles between 1st-person and 3rd-person view.
As I mentioned above, though Bethesda's games have a 3rd-person viewpoint, they don't work like one, instead keeping the same mechanics that I dislike from first-person and just zooming the camera out. Which does nothing to solve most of my complaints about first-person - which is why I tend to refer to first-person gameplay mechanics rather than just the first-person perspective when complaining about it.

Zevox

[Weezer]

"Many" games do that :smallconfused: ? The only ones I've ever encountered that tried to do that were Bethesda's. And yeah, their 3rd-person viewpoint did not work like an actual 3rd-person viewpoint should, instead using first-person mechanics just with a zoomed-out camera, which at times actually made them harder to play. 'Twould be much better if they had a proper third-person alternative.


Funny, I'd say exactly the same thing about first-person mechanics. Especially for melee combat. At least for shooting that perspective makes some sense, but for melee... ugh. The contrast between my time attempting to play a melee character in Fallout 3 and my time spent with good action games like Devil May Cry or The Legend of Zelda is like night and day.

Zevox

Maybe many is an exaggeration, but there are quite a few that spring to mind, Bethesda, Mount and Blade, and I'm blanking on any more. Maybe there were less than I thought. And actually M&B is one of the few that actually handles switching back and forth well, I'm always 1st person while mounted but dismounted I go back and forth depending on the situation/weapon I'm using.

That may just be because melee combat all round sucks in Fallout 3 (see my previous complaints about melee combat). Actually, without mods, combat kind of sucks all round in FO3, the game pretty much forces you to use VATs if you want to be effective. But as I said before, personal preference is king in these situations.

[KingofMadCows]

I can agree in some cases. I would prefer something closer to a balanced progression of wealth. In Fallout 3, up to about lvl 10, I never had enough money to get the essential things I needed. After lvl 10, I had more money than I knew what to do with.

As far as romances go, I don't mind them when they are done well, which is rare. In this sense, I think me1 did a better job than me2, which I thought was fairly light on companion conversations as a whole. What I dislike is when romance partners are chosen for you, as in knights of the old republic 2 and neverwinter nights 2.

Part of the problem with money is that games never give you a good sense of how valuable it is from the start.

Playing with the mentality that you need to save up your money to buy that special item only to learn that money becomes extremely abundant is really annoying.

Similarly, playing with the assumption that you can splurge from time to time only to find out that your income won't improve significantly later on and that you should have saved more, can also hurt the gaming experience.

KotoR 2 and NWN 2 were never supposed to have romances in the first place. They were just shoehorned in at the last minute.

[Mx.Silver]

+1 on QTEs in cutscenes and oversized inventories.

Something that may be a little more controversial: "punishments" for death/failure. By this I mean things like lives systems and limited continues in addition to debuffs/experience loss/item damage you see in MMOs and some RPGs. The fact that death/failure prevents you from progressing any further should really be all the punishment a player requires. Overly long death/failure sequences can also go away and never come back as well, while we're at it.


Mandatory sections which use different mechanics from the rest of the game is also something I'd like to see less of. Especially if these sections take the form of boss fights.

[Jahkaivah]

With regards to the importance of the first person perspective in games:

The Portal series would not work without a first person perspective.

Infiniminer/Minecraft style games needs first person perspective for navigating the inevitably cramped spaces.

Some stealth games, especially ones which have lean, (the Thief series in particular is loved for this) use the first person perspective as it creates greater tension when you cannot magically look around corners without being seen yourself, requiring you to make good use of the sound the enemy makes.

For that matter many cover based shooters like Counter Strike use a similar philosophy.

Not to mention stealth in multiplayer games, Team Fortress 2 for example requires cheats to be enabled for third person as it needs players to be in first person to help the Spy pull off backstabs.

And also those who play really intense FPSs like Quake III Arena would probably like to stay in the perspective that is least likely to get them killed.

Also first person horror games often benefit from the immersion of seeing thing's from the victim's perspective, especially when they make good use of knowing where the player is/isn't looking.

The Half Life series needs to be first person, because anything else would be blasphemous.

And then there are games like Mirror's Edge where one of the main points of interest is that it is first person in a genre which normally isn't.

[Knaight]

It helps to mentally divide the blade into a strong half, from the hilt to midway along the blade, and a weak half, from the halfway mark to the tip. So if I'm trying to push your sword around with mine, I want to use the strong of my blade against the weak of yours. I want to do this because with good leverage I can hit you while our blades are still touching; thanks to my better leverage you cannot stop or redirect my attack.

I'd note that dividing the sword into halves is only one system. Another favors thirds, and the difference is regional - though going into the details is a bit of a derailment. Anyways, regarding mount and blade combat, what I want to see far more than winding is half decent polearm combat - you have two hands, you can shift your grip, reach is highly variable, and you also have a lever which operates somewhat differently from winding with non-polearms. In game, all you get is a stab and a broad, useless swing.

Actually, at this point I would take any game, with any genre, in which you can use a spear in two hands and it actually feels like using a spear in two hands. As far as I know, there is not a single game that fits this description (and no, Soul Calibur doesn't count.)

[Zevox]

With regards to the importance of the first person perspective in games:

The Portal series would not work without a first person perspective.
I completely disagree with that statement. While I haven't played 2 yet, I have played 1, and see no reason whatsoever that it wouldn't work in third-person. Quite the contrary, that would help make the few platforming bits that required jumping rather than just portals more bearable. It might also make precision during the final fight easier.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

I'd note that dividing the sword into halves is only one system. Another favors thirds, and the difference is regional - though going into the details is a bit of a derailment.

Indeed an important note. Although I've never been exactly sure what the middle third of the blade in Fiore's system is good for. Admittedly this may be because the book I have on Fiore is much worse than my Ringeck book.


Anyways, regarding mount and blade combat, what I want to see far more than winding is half decent polearm combat - you have two hands, you can shift your grip, reach is highly variable, and you also have a lever which operates somewhat differently from winding with non-polearms. In game, all you get is a stab and a broad, useless swing.

Actually, at this point I would take any game, with any genre, in which you can use a spear in two hands and it actually feels like using a spear in two hands. As far as I know, there is not a single game that fits this description (and no, Soul Calibur doesn't count.)
I suspect a lot of it is because in reality poking at dudes until they miss a block is smart, but in a game it's broken*.

Well, that and nobody making games seems to have the slightest clue how weapons actually work. It's depressing to realize that one of the most realistically animated in-game fight sequences you can find is in the Sims Medieval.

*And in order to unbreak it odds are you'd need a stupendously complex system.



Funny, I'd say exactly the same thing about first-person mechanics. Especially for melee combat. At least for shooting that perspective makes some sense, but for melee... ugh. The contrast between my time attempting to play a melee character in Fallout 3 and my time spent with good action games like Devil May Cry or The Legend of Zelda is like night and day.

Zevox
Judging first person melee by Fallout 3 is like judging romance by going on a single date during which your partner does nothing but talk about their cats like they are people. It's a terrible experience and you have my sympathy, but it can be a lot better.

Of course it's also a very different sort of melee than Devil May Cry.

[Weezer]

I completely disagree with that statement. While I haven't played 2 yet, I have played 1, and see no reason whatsoever that it wouldn't work in third-person. Quite the contrary, that would help make the few platforming bits that required jumping rather than just portals more bearable. It might also make precision during the final fight easier.

Zevox

It would make the puzzles where you are flying through the air and need to accurately shoot a portal much, much harder, if not impossible, if you were in 3rd person. Though I agree, it would definitely help with the straight platforming bits (only one game I've seen does good 1st person jump puzzles, Mirror's Edge).

[Zevox]

It would make the puzzles where you are flying through the air and need to accurately shoot a portal much, much harder, if not impossible, if you were in 3rd person. Though I agree, it would definitely help with the straight platforming bits (only one game I've seen does good 1st person jump puzzles, Mirror's Edge).
Hm, no, no I don't think it would. Those are already about as challenging as I'd expect them to be regardless of perspective.

Zevox

[Knaight]

Indeed an important note. Although I've never been exactly sure what the middle third of the blade in Fiore's system is good for. Admittedly this may be because the book I have on Fiore is much worse than my Ringeck book.


Honestly, I have no idea. It might be that it just isn't, and everything you want to do is handled by the other two thirds - but that has more than a few problems.

[TheSummoner]

I'm a fan of MMORPGs, but I could do without gold-sinks. Then again, what the hell else are you going to do with all that money? I'm aware of the economic implications of not having "rent" in the game, but I still don't like it. Sure, tax the customizations, like putting flames on your mount, but the basic stuff (like having a mount in the first place) isn't necessary.

You do realize what happens when a MMORPG has no (or inadequate) money sinks, right? You say you understand the implications on the ingame economy, but the fact that you would do away with them makes me believe otherwise.

Video games tend to have theoretically infinite money. While there is a finite amount in circulation at any time, more is created on the spot as it is needed. The more money there is in the game at any given time, the less that gold is worth. Money sinks are necessary as a means to control the supply of ingame currency.

For example, let's say that in a hypothetical MMORPG, there is X gold in circulation at the moment. At item that everyone needs - lets say healing potions (and for the sake of the arguement, lets say that these cannot be crafted or bought in bulk from ingame stores) - cost 100 gold apiece. In this game, 100 gold is a fair amount, but nothing that a max level player can't easily afford to buy whenever he needs them.

Now let's say some time passes. Weeks, months, years, however long it takes. Now, this hypothetical MMORPG has no (or inadequate) money sinks. Now there is 100X gold in circulation. Healing potions now cost 100000 gold apiece. The income of an average player (someone who plays normally... Not someone who works the ingame markets or someone who buys gold) has not increased at all. The player cannot afford to buy bulk potions. The player might not even be able to afford a single one.

TL;DR - The more of something (that can be traded) that exists ingame the less it is worth. Gold, items, anything that can be traded between players. There has to be some form of control on these items (Gold sinks. Items are consumed when used. Items cannot be traded) or else it screws up the ingame economy. IF you've been playing for a while and are wealthy ingame, this may not mean much to you, but it can completly screw over new players.


Overworld. I just want to kill things. Stop with all the senseless walking.

So... Games should just be a series of killing arenas? No world, no immersion, just rooms with enemies to be killed in mass? Disagreed.

[Jahkaivah]

I completely disagree with that statement. While I haven't played 2 yet, I have played 1, and see no reason whatsoever that it wouldn't work in third-person. Quite the contrary, that would help make the few platforming bits that required jumping rather than just portals more bearable. It might also make precision during the final fight easier.

Zevox

If there is one thing third person does not get on with it is small doorways. As the camera suddenly has the task of zooming into the player character so that it does not clip through the wall when they run through them.

As such a lot of third person games try to avoid having a lot of small doors, often doing stuff like changing to a fixed camera when the player enters a building or having a small loading sequence when you walk through one.

But in Portal the entire gameplay revolves around a small doorway. One which can can open or close at any bright surface and change it's destination at the click of a button.

That can prove incredibly problematic because that can mean the demand for the camera zoom can change dramatically very quickly, especially when falling through a portal at terminal velocity like the game frequently requires you to do.

But more than anything else, an important and awesome aspect of the portals is that they don't just teleport you. They take two sperate points in space and connect them so it is possible to travel between the two seamlessly which is key to making some of the momentum based portal puzzles more intuitive while making the whole thing as cool as hell. This effect is lost with a third-person camera as the sudden camera zoom/switch distracts from the otherwise smooth transition through the portals.

[Vitruviansquid]

An MMO economy without gold sinks would operate on the barter system, like Diablo 2.

I'm not a fan of the barter system. :|

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I'm also not a fan burn-the-rope-to-kill-the-boss fights. Boss battles in action games should not just suddenly turn the game into a puzzle game.

I'm also not a fan of single player RTS campaigns where each mission gives you a new unit to use and, surprise surprise, has some special reason to force you to make that unit the centerpiece of your strategy.

[TheSummoner]

I'm also not a fan of single player RTS campaigns where each mission gives you a new unit to use and, surprise surprise, has some special reason to force you to make that unit the centerpiece of your strategy.

Eh, there's a good reason for that. The campaigns are (at the very least) suppose to teach you how to play the game. A good campaign will also be fun to play and have a good plot, but bare minimum, they are there to teach you the game. By introducing a new unit each map and making it incredibly powerful given the situation of the map, it teaches you how to use that specific unit.

I'm not saying it couldn't be handled better (more subtlety perhaps... Make the new unit useful and powerful in the scenario, but not to the point where you mass them and hit the I win button), just that there's a good reason for it.

[Makensha]

So... Games should just be a series of killing arenas? No world, no immersion, just rooms with enemies to be killed in mass? Disagreed.
I agree to disagree. I have no care for a game's lore, or architecture, or landscape. I came to play a game, and I don't want to spend 10 minutes walking to it. The one game that changed my opinion on this was Arkham City, because the world was compact and filled with fun stuff to do. Moving was also a joy.

There are so many times (Elder Scrolls, ME2, DA2, Assasin's Creed, Shining Force, Final Fantasy, NFS Underground 2 (they fixed that in the sequels), Pikmin, Tales of Dissidia(?), Legend of Zelda, Mount & Blade, etc.) where I wished that the world was replaced with a menu that would allow me to start missions, buy stuff, upgrade stuff, etc. without having all of the downtime where I just walk from place to place.

Yeah, it isn't a common view, but to me it cuts away useless fat.

Though if someone actually cares about stuff like plot, culture, geography, immersion, and watching objects slowly get closer to you, they'll naturally disagree with me.

If they can make moving enjoyable, my opinion changes.
If they can make me care about the world, my opinion changes.
If they can make me care about the people in the world, my opinion changes.
If they make the objects slowly getting closer exciting, my opinion changes.
If the combat connected to the game is not hindered by the open world style, my opinion changes.

Batman hits four of those. Nothing else has ever hit more than two.

[tribble]

Eh, there's a good reason for that. The campaigns are (at the very least) suppose to teach you how to play the game. A good campaign will also be fun to play and have a good plot, but bare minimum, they are there to teach you the game. By introducing a new unit each map and making it incredibly powerful given the situation of the map, it teaches you how to use that specific unit.

I'm not saying it couldn't be handled better (more subtlety perhaps... Make the new unit useful and powerful in the scenario, but not to the point where you mass them and hit the I win button), just that there's a good reason for it.

See, the thing is that that reason seems to be going away. Starcraft 2's campaign was so divorced from the multiplayer as to be unrecognizable. The (tiny) protoss campaign even completely disallowed the use of sentries! (sentinels? I haven't played in forever.)


While we're on the subject of RTSes, I want to see the trend of blatantly cheating computers go away. Starting with a massive base with redundant infrastructure to my barracks, two marines and four scvs? Okay. Bonuses to resource collection and stocks? Okay. Walking through an entire map crawling with neutral creeps unmolested for raids on my base?!? That's just infuriating.

[Weezer]

See, the thing is that that reason seems to be going away. Starcraft 2's campaign was so divorced from the multiplayer as to be unrecognizable. The (tiny) protoss campaign even completely disallowed the use of sentries! (sentinels? I haven't played in forever.)


While we're on the subject of RTSes, I want to see the trend of blatantly cheating computers go away. Starting with a massive base with redundant infrastructure to my barracks, two marines and four scvs? Okay. Bonuses to resource collection and stocks? Okay. Walking through an entire map crawling with neutral creeps unmolested for raids on my base?!? That's just infuriating.

The thing is that cheating is the only real way to get an AI to feel even halfway competitive with a good human player. RTS AI simply hasn't progressed to the point where it's actually adaptive and responsive, so it's easy to defeat. But yes, when they cheat it's frustrating indeed.

[TheSummoner]

The thing is that cheating is the only real way to get an AI to feel even halfway competitive with a good human player. RTS AI simply hasn't progressed to the point where it's actually adaptive and responsive, so it's easy to defeat. But yes, when they cheat it's frustrating indeed.

But as he said... Giving the enemy a base advantage, fine. Giving the enemy a bonus to resources, fine. Hell, those two could easily be justified by the scenerio of the map. (If you're attacking an enemy encampment that has been standing for a while, why wouldn't they have advanced infastructure and stockpiled resources?). His specific complaint was "neutral" enemy mobs ignoring the computer player. That's just poor map design, really.

[Zevox]

If there is one thing third person does not get on with it is small doorways. As the camera suddenly has the task of zooming into the player character so that it does not clip through the wall when they run through them.

As such a lot of third person games try to avoid having a lot of small doors, often doing stuff like changing to a fixed camera when the player enters a building or having a small loading sequence when you walk through one.

But in Portal the entire gameplay revolves around a small doorway. One which can can open or close at any bright surface and change it's destination at the click of a button.

That can prove incredibly problematic because that can mean the demand for the camera zoom can change dramatically very quickly, especially when falling through a portal at terminal velocity like the game frequently requires you to do.

But more than anything else, an important and awesome aspect of the portals is that they don't just teleport you. They take two sperate points in space and connect them so it is possible to travel between the two seamlessly which is key to making some of the momentum based portal puzzles more intuitive while making the whole thing as cool as hell. This effect is lost with a third-person camera as the sudden camera zoom/switch distracts from the otherwise smooth transition through the portals.
This is not a problem at all. Simply lock the camera behind the character during the transition through the portal, so that it's looking directly through the portal until you're through. Minor issue solved.

Zevox

[Ogremindes]

This is not a problem at all. Simply lock the camera behind the character during the transition through the portal, so that it's looking directly through the portal until you're through. Minor issue solved.

Zevox

The transitions are frequent (to the point of several times a second at times) and instantaneous. Not gonna work.

[Brother Oni]

This is not a problem at all. Simply lock the camera behind the character during the transition through the portal, so that it's looking directly through the portal until you're through. Minor issue solved.

And then the camera has a fit when you're doing a momentum loop as you're flying through a portal every couple of seconds.

I think the issue is that there's different levels of third person, depending on how tight the angle is. A tight, over the shoulder view is effectively identical to first person as only the character's head (and possibly shoulders) are in view, whereas a high elevated view would have the issues pointed out by others.

[Zevox]

The transitions are frequent (to the point of several times a second at times) and instantaneous. Not gonna work.
Not in Portal 1 they weren't. None of the puzzles there required more than a few portals in a single jump, and they were never spaced anywhere near close enough to go through several in a single second. I suppose I can't speak for Portal 2 though.


And then the camera has a fit when you're doing a momentum loop as you're flying through a portal every couple of seconds.
The camera has a fit in first-person for that anyway, since you have to automatically reorient so that your feet are pointed towards the ground again, and the camera in first-person is locked to your character's perspective. I honestly think a third-person version would be less disorienting than that.

Zevox

[Brother Oni]

I honestly think a third-person version would be less disorienting than that.

Oh, I agree, but this disorientation is part of the gameplay.

You're trading convinience for immersion, which is usually an intentional design decision.

Take the Aliens versus Predator games for example, specifically the marine sections - would running about with the motion tracker be anywhere near as terrifying in a third person view compared to a first person?

A game which has elements of both views would be the Fatal Frame series - you wander around in third person, but it switches to the first person view of the camera in combat, which adds to the horror.

[Trazoi]

Narbacular Drop, the student game that was rebuilt as Portal, has a toggle between first and third person viewpoints. You can get the IGF version from their DigiPen website and settle the debate. :smallsmile:

[factotum]

Not in Portal 1 they weren't. None of the puzzles there required more than a few portals in a single jump, and they were never spaced anywhere near close enough to go through several in a single second.

Not to disagree with you, m'learned colleague, but don't you remember the puzzles in Portal 1 that had to be solved by the "infinite fall" technique of falling through two linked portals faster and faster until you had enough momentum to catapault yourself where you needed to go?

[Zen Master]

Heh - I'm kinda late for the discussion I started =)

I don't give much of a damn about that whole 'immersion' thing - it's a marketing term that seems to mean 'we can't be bothered to come up with a decent story, we'd much rather just invest in the latest graphics engine'. I read books, for chrissake - immersion has NOTHING to do with viewpoint or graphics. I play Bastion, and Frozen Synapse, and League of Legends.

That said .... naturally there are games that wouldn't work in the same way without 1pv. The Battlefield series, for instance, or World of Warcraft. Actually, I'm unsure about WoW. But for a certain supset of games, depth perception is vital.

Generally speaking though - those games aren't great. A very few are, like Deus Ex. But other than that, it's extremely rare for those games to be much above mediocre.

And of course I have sales figures to contend with on that statement, but I cal live with that =)

[MLai]

Has anyone mentioned the "silent RPG protagonist" yet?

I f'ing hate that. Hated it when Japan did it. Hated it when Bioware did it. Never bought the excuse "he's silent so you can imagine yourself as him." Give me a break.

[Zevox]

Oh, I agree, but this disorientation is part of the gameplay.

You're trading convinience for immersion, which is usually an intentional design decision.
Yeah, as I mentioned in a previous post, "immersion" via gameplay does not work for me, at all. Only the story can do that for me. As such, there is no immersion in Portal for me. That disorientation from your character reorienting just annoys me personally.


Take the Aliens versus Predator games for example, specifically the marine sections - would running about with the motion tracker be anywhere near as terrifying in a third person view compared to a first person?

A game which has elements of both views would be the Fatal Frame series - you wander around in third person, but it switches to the first person view of the camera in combat, which adds to the horror.
I've never played either of those games, so I can't comment.


Not to disagree with you, m'learned colleague, but don't you remember the puzzles in Portal 1 that had to be solved by the "infinite fall" technique of falling through two linked portals faster and faster until you had enough momentum to catapault yourself where you needed to go?
Oh I'm quite certain there were no puzzles requiring that in Portal 1. I stumbled across that option while goofing off late in one of my play-throughs of the title, but I'm absolutely certain it was never used in an actual puzzle.

Zevox

[Mewtarthio]

Has anyone mentioned the "silent RPG protagonist" yet?

I f'ing hate that. Hated it when Japan did it. Hated it when Bioware did it. Never bought the excuse "he's silent so you can imagine yourself as him." Give me a break.

There's no real need, seeing as it's already well on its way out. Bioware's protagonists have always been fairly chatty, even if full voice acting is a relatively new trend. JRPGs have long since abandoned the idea of the protagonist being the player stand-in (or even the game having a singular protagonist in the first place).

That being said, I'm not sad to see that trope disappear. The only real effect it had was making the protagonist the most boring character in the game. I can't think of a single RPG where it was done well, except maybe Bastion, with its third-person narrator replacing all dialogue (assuming Bastion even counts as an RPG). Oh, and Super Mario RPG, where Mario communicates entirely through elaborate pantomime, but that was obviously poking fun at the concept.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Link is still mute isn't he? But I guess that's more of grandfather clause thing. He's not mute because he's a player stand in anymore, is he? He's mute 'cos he's always been mute.

I guess the pokemon games are the only ones I can think of that still use silent protagonists. Oh, and Skyrim.

But yeah, that's a trope on it's way out, and I for one am not sad to see it go.

[Zorg]

I thought that, then I played Other M :smallamused:

[tribble]

But as he said... Giving the enemy a base advantage, fine. Giving the enemy a bonus to resources, fine. Hell, those two could easily be justified by the scenerio of the map. (If you're attacking an enemy encampment that has been standing for a while, why wouldn't they have advanced infastructure and stockpiled resources?). His specific complaint was "neutral" enemy mobs ignoring the computer player. That's just poor map design, really.

Yeah, and then there are the maps where high-end units will randomly spawn and lay siege to your base... I did not like the orc campaing in warcraft three.

[Zevox]

Has anyone mentioned the "silent RPG protagonist" yet?

I f'ing hate that. Hated it when Japan did it. Hated it when Bioware did it. Never bought the excuse "he's silent so you can imagine yourself as him." Give me a break.
I'd generally agree - though Bioware's aren't silent protagonists, they're blank-slate protagonists that you get to choose the dialogue for. Which I'm also not fond of personally.

I'm fine with grandfathering Link in this regard, simply because it'd be jarring as hell to change him now, but honestly this one thing where I wish even Dragon Quest, which is built on being the old-school JRPG series, would change. There's just no benefit to it.

The only pseudo-silent/blank-slate protagonist that I've ever seen work is in Persona 3 and 4, and that I suspect is in large part because a big part of those games is you building friendships and relationships with other people, and as such having them address you directly but without breaking the fourth wall actually works to help get you connected to the characters. Also helps that your main character isn't the center of the universe the way Bioware's are. Heck, in Persona 3 you're not even anything close to the leader of your little group, as Mitsuru and Ikutski tend to take that position early on, and later it becomes more a group of equals type of thing. In Persona 4 you're more of a leader, but it's still largely a group of equals.

Zevox

[pendell]

I second the hate for Silent Protagonists. Let's have some character development already.

But if there's ONE thing I would like to see change, it's the cutscene the completely undoes all you accomplished in the previous boss battle.

You know the kind -- when you completely annihilate a 'boss', but Plot requires that he win, so after you've knocked his health into the red zone the boss suddenly lets loose his super spectacular one-shot punch and you wake up in prison.

I'm thinking of the first battle against Sorceress Edea in Final Fantasy VIII, as one example. Or about half the times you first meet a boss in Radiata Stories.

The way I see it, if the boss is going to be an enemy on the field of battle there should be a real chance to lose or win, and there should be a consequence of some kind. Even if the outcome so badly derails the campaign that the game goes to an automatic secret "victory" ending, followed with an option to resume the game on the main plot line.

I HATE enemies with the Invulnerable tag set , wasting however much of my time they please until we go to the "He slaughtered you" cutscene. And there almost always is a cutscene and it almost always takes forever.

*Deep breath*

Thanks for letting me vent.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[TheSummoner]

Eh... It really depends on what the focus of the story is...

Is the focus of the plot the main character or the world itself? If it is about the character, then you need a well defined character. He/she needs a personality and the game needs to communicate this. Believe it or not, this doesn't mean the character actually has to speak. I for one don't want my Marios and Links and Megamans to speak. You start saying things like "every game needs full voice acting" and you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CV5UgInnzQ) get (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ_FSVWR6ZE) this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LISmPmdUhYA). (Granted those examples were from cutscenes, but I assure you... The voice work in the actual gameplay parts was no better)

If the focus is the world itself, blank slate can work. I don't like it personally, but I acknowledge that it could work. The problem is that a good blank slate requires much more work than developers usually put in.

Really, this thread is a good example of why developers shouldn't listen to what people say they want... Or at the very least take it with a grain of salt. The thread is "what elements should disappear," not "what elements do you personally not like." So many of the things people (not pointing the finger at any one person in particular) have said would completly ruin games (or atleast certain types of games) if they weren't there. Maybe these elements are handled poorly sometimes, but there's often a good reason they exist.

[Mx.Silver]

Has anyone mentioned the "silent RPG protagonist" yet?

I f'ing hate that. Hated it when Japan did it. Hated it when Bioware did it. Never bought the excuse "he's silent so you can imagine yourself as him." Give me a break.

Technically most of those are blank-slate protagonists, but I can see where you're coming from. I'm not sure if it should fully disappear because there are a few examples where this has kind of worked. The original Fallout games and Arcanum had enough room for choice to somewhat justify the lack of main character personality, and I'm not honestly sure if giving the protagonist more established personality would have helped Bloodlines either (it is interesting to note that all these games were made by the same people). There's also Torment, but then again it's somewhat debatable exactly how much of a blank-slate/character The Nameless One is.


Generally though I'd agree it should probably be less prevalent than it is, although we may actually be starting to see it shift a bit from being the norm in western RPGs (The Witcher games, for example). Hell, if Dragon Age 2 is any indication even Bioware may be starting to move away from it a bit, given that Hawke was a lot closer to becoming a character than any of their previous leads.

[Drascin]

I thought that, then I played Other M :smallamused:

Yes. Silent protagonists are quite superior to brain-breakingly terrible protagonists, as that game shows well enough :smalltongue:. And you can actually give a decent bit of characteriation without the need for words anyhow!

[Lord Seth]

Never bought the excuse "he's silent so you can imagine yourself as him." Give me a break.Wasn't imagining yourself as the protagonist part of the whole appeal of Pokemon, though?

[Zevox]

Wasn't imagining yourself as the protagonist part of the whole appeal of Pokemon, though?
:smallconfused: Not to my recollection. Certainly it never was for me, nor can I recall others saying it was for them back when I was into the series.

Zevox

[Lord Seth]

:smallconfused: Not to my recollection. Certainly it never was for me, nor can I recall others saying it was for them back when I was into the series.It might not have necessarily been a conscious thing (certainly not to the point that people would say it to others). But I do think that was part of the point of the game. I know is that as a kid, I felt a lot more like "wow, it'd be really cool if I could really do this kind of stuff" in Pokemon than any other RPG I've ever played.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Wasn't imagining yourself as the protagonist part of the whole appeal of Pokemon, though?

I know for sure that half the fun I have playing pokemon these days (13 or so years after I started... now I feel old :smallsigh:) is imagining the character's snarky retorts to the general inanity of the pokeworld in the style of pretty much every pokemon LP ever. Which isn't quite the same as imagining myself as the protagonist, but would certainly be impossible without a silent protagonist.

So I guess there are a few cases where a silent protagonist is better.

[Jahkaivah]

This is not a problem at all. Simply lock the camera behind the character during the transition through the portal, so that it's looking directly through the portal until you're through. Minor issue solved.

Generally the player isn't going to want camera control taken from them like that, especially in a game where half the fun is the joy of exploring how seamless the portals are.

Trazoi mentioned Narbacular Drop (which this conversation had already prompted me to reinstall) which had a better way of handling it in that the camera would remain outside the portal when the player character walked in but would suddenly teleport the instant something comes between the camera and the player character.

Of course it meant the camera would jolt around and it still had problems such as not being able to get a good look at what is through the portal before you step through which was crucial in Portal to ensure you weren't about to step out in front of a turret or into the toxic water. It also had the help of the portals being large gates instead of small ellipsis which is admittedly something I liked about that game as it made the portals cooler.


The camera has a fit in first-person for that anyway, since you have to automatically reorient so that your feet are pointed towards the ground again, and the camera in first-person is locked to your character's perspective. I honestly think a third-person version would be less disorienting than that.

Actually the only reintorientation that Portal does is for the rotational axis that is normally static unless you are piloting some manner of vehicle. It really doesn't make a differance if it's first or third person there. Instead you want to get Chell a Aperture-Science-Portal-Device-Mounted-Motorcycle, which I am all for. (And ironically would probably work better in third person) Then instead of worrying about reintorientation, you only have to worry about crashing. :smalltongue:


I know for sure that half the fun I have playing pokemon these days (13 or so years after I started... now I feel old :smallsigh:) is imagining the character's snarky retorts to the general inanity of the pokeworld in the style of pretty much every pokemon LP ever. Which isn't quite the same as imagining myself as the protagonist, but would certainly be impossible without a silent protagonist.

So I guess there are a few cases where a silent protagonist is better.

This is how stuff like Freeman's Mind is made.

[Gnoman]

I agree to disagree. I have no care for a game's lore, or architecture, or landscape. I came to play a game, and I don't want to spend 10 minutes walking to it. The one game that changed my opinion on this was Arkham City, because the world was compact and filled with fun stuff to do. Moving was also a joy.

There are so many times (Elder Scrolls, ME2, DA2, Assasin's Creed, Shining Force, Final Fantasy, NFS Underground 2 (they fixed that in the sequels), Pikmin, Tales of Dissidia(?), Legend of Zelda, Mount & Blade, etc.) where I wished that the world was replaced with a menu that would allow me to start missions, buy stuff, upgrade stuff, etc. without having all of the downtime where I just walk from place to place.



Have you tried Final Fantasy X-2? It has exactly that sort of menu system (your airship will drop you off at any location you want, and will pick you up from any save point.) Even if you agree with the games (undeserved) reputation, it's still a good example of how such a thing can work in practice.

[warty goblin]

Heh - I'm kinda late for the discussion I started =)

I don't give much of a damn about that whole 'immersion' thing - it's a marketing term that seems to mean 'we can't be bothered to come up with a decent story, we'd much rather just invest in the latest graphics engine'. I read books, for chrissake - immersion has NOTHING to do with viewpoint or graphics. I play Bastion, and Frozen Synapse, and League of Legends.
That said .... naturally there are games that wouldn't work in the same way without 1pv. The Battlefield series, for instance, or World of Warcraft. Actually, I'm unsure about WoW. But for a certain supset of games, depth perception is vital.
I may be horribly misinformed, but isn't WoW third person?

And it is true that immersion doesn't have to do with graphics. Immersion for me is essentially a matter of the mechanics of the game mirroring the story and theme of the title in order to increase my empathy and identification with the characters and world. Changing gas mask filters in Metro 2033 is an excellent example of an immersive mechanic since it drives home your frailty and vulnerability. The orbiting planets in Space Rangers 2 emphasize that the universe is constantly changing with or without you, and the need for food, sleep and medical supplies in STALKER serves to highlight your humanity in a fundamentally alien environment. Perspective is very much a mechanic, and it can absolutely be used to create immersion; as I said before third person STALKER would be fairly wretched compared to the first person version.




Generally speaking though - those games aren't great. A very few are, like Deus Ex. But other than that, it's extremely rare for those games to be much above mediocre.

Speak for yourself, some of my best times in games have involved wandering around in first person. All those times I was horribly shot by somebody I couldn't even see in ArmA...

[Grif]

I may be horribly misinformed, but isn't WoW third person?


Yes, WoW is mainly played in the TPV. After all, there's not much use for a FPS there. (Shots are after all, autoaimed.)

[GolemsVoice]

I don't give much of a damn about that whole 'immersion' thing - it's a marketing term that seems to mean 'we can't be bothered to come up with a decent story, we'd much rather just invest in the latest graphics engine'. I read books, for chrissake - immersion has NOTHING to do with viewpoint or graphics.

While it might be true that there are games where shiny graphics trump any notion of story, saying graphics can't help with immersion is to me like going to the cinema just to listen to the audio, because that tells a story too, and I listen to audiobooks, goddammit.

A well told story that is supported by good graphics, in the form of actual things in the game world, cutscenes, animation, whatever, is very much superior to a game with just a good story. Also, as with cutscenes, a certain level of graphics is needed just to show certain things. Video game producers need to remember, however, that graphics are a tool, not the main purpose.

Still, in the end, I like looking at pretty things in good graphics, and hey, that's also why I'm playing a game, and why I'm NOT reading a book. Games are a highly visual medium, so give me something to look at.

[Murska]

Mooks, especially zombies, who die very quickly but still kill you very quickly as well, would be nice to see. Take away the 'stay in cover, shoot one enemy, duck, regen health, repeat' for hours and have me walk into a room of enemies and shoot my clip empty at the fifteen guys there and if even one's still alive when I start reloading, I'm most likely dead.

A zombie game would be way more interesting without all kinds of mutation forms or whatever, except perhaps as bosses, but with actually thousands of zombies everywhere that die in one headshot or can be killed easily in a couple bodyshots as well, where the objective isn't to kill all zombies but to, for example, reach safety. Not enough ammunition to survive, and a single hit by a zombie infects you and leads to (perhaps only almost) unavoidable death (unless there's some mechanic to cure infection in its early stages). No meleeing zombies unless absolutely desperate, no shooting through a horde to loot a room that you don't actually need to visit, no 'zombie horde' where there's eight of them and they each take half a clip of your bullets to kill.

[Zen Master]

I may be horribly misinformed, but isn't WoW third person?

Well - yes ... there is that. But my point here had more to do with depth perception, which WoW has. Also, WoW lets you zoom all the way into 1pv - and to my mind, 3rd person is just 1st person with the back of your character visible.


And it is true that immersion doesn't have to do with graphics. Immersion for me is essentially a matter of the mechanics of the game mirroring the story and theme of the title in order to increase my empathy and identification with the characters and world. Changing gas mask filters in Metro 2033 is an excellent example of an immersive mechanic since it drives home your frailty and vulnerability. The orbiting planets in Space Rangers 2 emphasize that the universe is constantly changing with or without you, and the need for food, sleep and medical supplies in STALKER serves to highlight your humanity in a fundamentally alien environment. Perspective is very much a mechanic, and it can absolutely be used to create immersion; as I said before third person STALKER would be fairly wretched compared to the first person version.

I can't agree with you. Perspective does nothing for immersion. It does some things for certain types of game play, as previously mentioned. Like racing games.

No, if anything, perspective can ruin immersion because it becomes a crutch. Developers seem to feel they need not much around with all that story stuff, and the fluff and background - never mind that, we can just show the world as it is, and people will fill in the blanks themselves.


Speak for yourself, some of my best times in games have involved wandering around in first person. All those times I was horribly shot by somebody I couldn't even see in ArmA...

I never speak for anyone except myself. It's even in my signature.

Anyways, getting shot by someone you can't see sounds like nothing but good times =)

[warty goblin]

Well - yes ... there is that. But my point here had more to do with depth perception, which WoW has. Also, WoW lets you zoom all the way into 1pv - and to my mind, 3rd person is just 1st person with the back of your character visible.

There are third person games like that, and there are third person games that aren't. Tomb Raider I think being a good example of the second category.



I can't agree with you. Perspective does nothing for immersion. It does some things for certain types of game play, as previously mentioned. Like racing games.

No, if anything, perspective can ruin immersion because it becomes a crutch. Developers seem to feel they need not much around with all that story stuff, and the fluff and background - never mind that, we can just show the world as it is, and people will fill in the blanks themselves.
I've never found immersion to need vast quantities of background, or to be necessary for a good story. The careful use of background material is necessary for a good story of course, and sometimes this is a lot, and sometimes very, very little. Given the generally mediocre quality of game lore, and the clumsy way it is presented, I find I often prefer a rather more minimalist approach to background.

And why is showing the player the story such a bad thing, particularly in a visual medium? I'm genuinely confused here, it seems like weaving the story into the very representation of the world in which it occurs can only strengthen the delivery, not weaken it.



I never speak for anyone except myself. It's even in my signature.

Anyways, getting shot by someone you can't see sounds like nothing but good times =)
Oh it is; there's nothing like the constant tension produced by wondering where the hell the enemy is, and if they're over there, what to do about. It's made even better by supersonic bullets, so you can literally die before hearing the shot. It's nothing on getting shot in both legs and crawling everywhere though.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I can't agree with you. Perspective does nothing for immersion. It does some things for certain types of game play, as previously mentioned. Like racing games.

I can't agree with you there. There's a very fundamental difference between 1st and 3rd person in my mind: The latter continually reminds you that you are controlling a dude, the former tries not to. That's not to say that 1st-person is inherently more immersive, but there is in my mind a clear difference in the kind of immersion I'm getting. In one, I'm controlling a character who is clearly differentiated from me - not really any different how I'm watching a character when I see a movie or reading a book. In first person, I am the dude to a much larger degree.

This creates different sorts of immersion - I care much more about dying in first person, for instance. Resident Evil will never be as scary playing a Colonial Marine in AvP (or wandering down dark tunnels in STALKER) for this reason. In third person I am obviously not the character and it's kinda hard to care about some dude I've known for a few hours more that I care for myself. As a counterpoint, I tend to care less about story in 1st person. Why? Because almost invariably the character reacts in ways that are different from mine ("mine" as in "how I think I'd react if I was a hulking badass marine" or whatever). In 3rd person this is not an issue: I'm not the character and there's no pretense that I am. In first person though? It breaks the illusion that I am the character, pulling me out of the game, so to speak.





Oh it is; there's nothing like the constant tension produced by wondering where the hell the enemy is, and if they're over there, what to do about. It's made even better by supersonic bullets, so you can literally die before hearing the shot. It's nothing on getting shot in both legs and crawling everywhere though.

You have the (to me) most awesomely bizarre tastes Warty. :smallsmile:

[Thufir]

See, it's true you cannot make a 1st person game without 1st person graphics. I just happen to think that no game is really much improved by that.

Wait. So FP games require FP graphics, but no games are improved by FP graphics?
This is a contradiction in terms.


And that's what the first person is there for, in games. Immersion. You touched on it by mentioning simulators but it's true for many other games ,as well. Metroid Prime being a prime example.

Also, yes, this.


That's one thing I personally dislike about first-person mechanics: the fact that the camera is tied directly to the direction your character is facing, and cannot be moved independently of that. That makes it more awkward and very annoying from where I'm sitting. Plus you see less in first-person than in third, for obvious reasons.

Yeah, but, immersion. In real life, your viewpoint (camera) is tied directly to the way your head is facing. This is the same. You can't look behind you without turning around.
Or, I guess you could imagine moving the camera as if you were turning your head without actually turning your body, except that that's not really how turning works IRL, so whatever.


Funny, I'd say exactly the same thing about first-person mechanics. Especially for melee combat. At least for shooting that perspective makes some sense, but for melee... ugh. The contrast between my time attempting to play a melee character in Fallout 3 and my time spent with good action games like Devil May Cry or The Legend of Zelda is like night and day.

I'll give you this. Third person is better for melee. First person is better for shooting.


I completely disagree with that statement. While I haven't played 2 yet, I have played 1, and see no reason whatsoever that it wouldn't work in third-person. Quite the contrary, that would help make the few platforming bits that required jumping rather than just portals more bearable. It might also make precision during the final fight easier.

I have never liked third person 3D platforming. It's too hard on the depth perception and knowing what I'm actually above without being able to look straight down is terrible. First person, you look down and see what is under your feet and that is where you will land. And you have a direct view of where your goign and can see how far a jump takes you more easily because there isn't a character in your way.


This is not a problem at all. Simply lock the camera behind the character during the transition through the portal, so that it's looking directly through the portal until you're through. Minor issue solved.

And then you have to shoot another portal straight after going through and you can't because your character obscures your view.


I don't give much of a damn about that whole 'immersion' thing - it's a marketing term that seems to mean 'we can't be bothered to come up with a decent story, we'd much rather just invest in the latest graphics engine'.

What is this I don't even.
How.
How can you think immersion is a marketing thing? Immersion is a mark of good game-making. It does not require a first person viewpoint, but that can help, depending on the nature of the game. And "we can't be bothered to come up with a decent story," is the opposite of immersion. You ever gotten immersed in a really bad story? I haven't. Good stories are immersing.


Not to disagree with you, m'learned colleague, but don't you remember the puzzles in Portal 1 that had to be solved by the "infinite fall" technique of falling through two linked portals faster and faster until you had enough momentum to catapault yourself where you needed to go?

The only one I remember which required an infinite fall was in the advanced chambers. Even then, only because of the way the portal-able surfaces were situated. To gain sufficient momentum, you never needed more than one or two falls.

I have nothing really to add to the topic in general. I can't think of any gaming elements I've encountered which I wish didn't exist at all. I could come up with some which are often poorly executed, but they'd be fine if they were done well.

[tribble]

I have never liked third person 3D platforming. It's too hard on the depth perception and knowing what I'm actually above without being able to look straight down is terrible. First person, you look down and see what is under your feet and that is where you will land. And you have a direct view of where your goign and can see how far a jump takes you more easily because there isn't a character in your way.

:smallconfused: I simply can't agree with any part of this paragraph. If I'm going to be platforming, I'd rather have it in the third person, like mario, so that I can see when a trap or hazard is about to go off. I 'm frankly baffled by your assertion that the third person view makes it more difficult to gauge how far you can jump.

So, TL;DR: Lol Wut.

On-Topic, I want to see the sandbox game abolished. You know what else has a massively populated world where you can interact with thousands of NPCs in real time, realistic graphics, etc. etc? Real life. Everytime I hear about skyrim I want to take the speaker by the shoulders, shake them, and tell them "GO. OUT. SIIIIIIIIDE!"

[TheSummoner]

But there aren't any dragons out siiiiiiiide.

Also, Skyrim isn't a sandbox game. It's an open world RPG.

[Thufir]

:smallconfused: I simply can't agree with any part of this paragraph. If I'm going to be platforming, I'd rather have it in the third person, like mario, so that I can see when a trap or hazard is about to go off. I 'm frankly baffled by your assertion that the third person view makes it more difficult to gauge how far you can jump.

So, TL;DR: Lol Wut.

I stand by what I said. Also Mario should never be in 3D. NEVER.
Anyway, it is harder, partly because by the nature of it what you're looking at is further away, looking at two things rather than one, sometimes the camera moves around in weird ways which can be confusing, and once my character's feet have left the ground I have no easy reference points.
This isn't a massive issue usuall, but I do find it easier in first person generally.
The only case where it really bothered me was in the Soul Reaver games, because I'd jump and glide to get over a gap, and then fall down said gap because I had no easy means of determining whether I'd gone far enough, not far enough, or too far, because there's no way to look straight down at what's under your feet.

[GolemsVoice]

No, if anything, perspective can ruin immersion because it becomes a crutch. Developers seem to feel they need not much around with all that story stuff, and the fluff and background - never mind that, we can just show the world as it is, and people will fill in the blanks themselves.

Isn't one of the most important rules for novel writers show, don't tell? To my mind, that becomes even more important in video games. I'm not allergic to text, but if I had to read a small book just to "get" everything in the game, I'd go and actually READ a book. Are you really saying that a video game (there's a reason it's called video, not audio) should not use the very thing that defines it?

[Zevox]

Yeah, but, immersion.
Once again, immersion does not work that way for me. I either get attached to the characters and the events of the story, or I don't. Nothing about the gameplay mechanics has any effect on that for me. All the first-person viewpoint does for me is add frustrations to the gameplay part.


In real life, your viewpoint (camera) is tied directly to the way your head is facing. This is the same. You can't look behind you without turning around.
And if first-person gameplay mechanics were actually completely realistic, that might be an argument. Before that can happen however you'll need to be using something like the kinect to give you direct and full control of the character's movements, 3D visuals to give yourself proper depth perception, and find some way to add peripheral vision to it, at the least. As-is, it's just a clunky set of gameplay mechanics, nothing more.


I have never liked third person 3D platforming. It's too hard on the depth perception and knowing what I'm actually above without being able to look straight down is terrible. First person, you look down and see what is under your feet and that is where you will land. And you have a direct view of where your goign and can see how far a jump takes you more easily because there isn't a character in your way.
I have never had any difficulty telling where I can and can't jump to in 3rd-person platforming. Not platforming game worth its salt is designed in a way that could trick you into thinking a platform is in one place when it's really in another, especially if it has proper camera controls, which allow easy confirming of your position relative to everything else. Most such games even give you a shadow that is always directly below you to make it easier to tell your exact position mid-jump.

In first-person, however, it's terrible - I can't tell exactly where I am relative to the ledge at any given point, so I can never be sure how far I can run before falling off the ledge in order to make hard jumps, and often jumping too early to compensate for this results in missing even jumps that shouldn't have been hard. Portal's few such bits frustrated the heck out of me because of this. The loss of full view of my surroundings relative to my character in general is just a huge problem there, and hurts even more if I'm trying to do this while there are enemies around.


And then you have to shoot another portal straight after going through and you can't because your character obscures your view.
Your character never obscures your view in a well-made 3rd-person game. They're not that big at the proper camera zoom level and you can see enough past them to know what's there.


I stand by what I said. Also Mario should never be in 3D. NEVER.
Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, and both Mario Galaxy games disagree. Strongly. (Super Mario 3D Land, admittedly, is not proving to be a ringing endorsement of this, but this conversation has given me an additional idea of why I'm finding that I don't like that game nearly as much as I usually like Mario games.)


The only case where it really bothered me was in the Soul Reaver games, because I'd jump and glide to get over a gap, and then fall down said gap because I had no easy means of determining whether I'd gone far enough, not far enough, or too far, because there's no way to look straight down at what's under your feet.
Sounds like that game simply had significant camera problems. That should never be an issue in any game with proper camera control, which 3D platformers have had since Mario 64.


Also, Skyrim isn't a sandbox game. It's an open world RPG.
Same thing.

Zevox

[Thufir]

As-is, it's just a clunky set of gameplay mechanics, nothing more.

Nothing clunky about it.


In first-person, however, it's terrible - I can't tell exactly where I am relative to the ledge at any given point, so I can never be sure how far I can run before falling off the ledge in order to make hard jumps, and often jumping too early to compensate for this results in missing even jumps that shouldn't have been hard.

Whereas I have no difficulty judging the distances relative to my move speed. And if that doesn't work for you, you could just look down at the ground so you can see the edge of the ledge.


Your character never obscures your view in a well-made 3rd-person game. They're not that big at the proper camera zoom level and you can see enough past them to know what's there.

But we're talking about Portal here. Going through a portal. A portal which is not much bigger than you. How are you supposed to see past that?
Answer: You're not, and that is one reason why it's a first person game.


Mario 64, Mario Sunshine, and both Mario Galaxy games disagree. Strongly.

We've already clearly established in this thread that not everyone agrees about how well certain mechanics work.


Sounds like that game simply had significant camera problems. That should never be an issue in any game with proper camera control, which 3D platformers have had since Mario 64.

Granted, I don't play a lot of third person platformers, because I just don't like them, but I can't remember coming across a third person game where you could rotate the camera to look up and down at all well. Behind and to the sides, sure, but not up and down.


Same thing.

Nope.

[warty goblin]

You have the (to me) most awesomely bizarre tastes Warty. :smallsmile:

Actually you know the best part of ArmA 2, the hardest core soldier sim on the civilian market?

Playing as a rabbit. There's also a goat option.



Same thing.

Zevox
No, they really aren't. Skyrim takes the usual RPGs mechanics - sequences of disassociated quests, levels, dungeons, - increases their number, and spreads them out over a large area of virtual geography without the directed path through it typical of non-open world titles.

A sandbox game usually lifts the mechanics of a third person (or rarely first person) action title, and grafts them into large bodies of geography, along with recurring categories of optional side missions that nevertheless usually directly or indirectly contribute to the overall purpose of the game's story.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

On-Topic, I want to see the sandbox game abolished. You know what else has a massively populated world where you can interact with thousands of NPCs in real time, realistic graphics, etc. etc? Real life. Everytime I hear about skyrim I want to take the speaker by the shoulders, shake them, and tell them "GO. OUT. SIIIIIIIIDE!"

TheSummoner already covered this but I'll reiterate: There aren't any dragons outside. Nor is it possible to shout so hard time slows down. Or survive crashing your motorcycle into a tank at a hundred miles an hour without helmet, to put in an example from another game.

[Zevox]

Nothing clunky about it.
We disagree on that.


Whereas I have no difficulty judging the distances relative to my move speed. And if that doesn't work for you, you could just look down at the ground so you can see the edge of the ledge.
:smallconfused: I have no idea how you could ever judge distances based on you movement speed - you need to know positioning to judge distances, not movement speed. And looking down at the ground doesn't help, because then I can't see anything else due to the horribly limited perspective - plus in a game like Portal it doesn't show my character's feet, so I can never be sure where precisely I am even trying to look down at the ground, since I can't be certain when I'm looking at the exact spot below me.


But we're talking about Portal here. Going through a portal. A portal which is not much bigger than you. How are you supposed to see past that?
Answer: You're not, and that is one reason why it's a first person game.
So you go through the portal and look around then. Still not a problem.


Granted, I don't play a lot of third person platformers, because I just don't like them, but I can't remember coming across a third person game where you could rotate the camera to look up and down at all well. Behind and to the sides, sure, but not up and down.
I can't recall one where you couldn't. That's been around since Mario 64.


No, they really aren't. Skyrim takes the usual RPGs mechanics - sequences of disassociated quests, levels, dungeons, - increases their number, and spreads them out over a large area of virtual geography without the directed path through it typical of non-open world titles.

A sandbox game usually lifts the mechanics of a third person (or rarely first person) action title, and grafts them into large bodies of geography, along with recurring categories of optional side missions that nevertheless usually directly or indirectly contribute to the overall purpose of the game's story.
Not seeing how those are different honestly.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

We disagree on that.


:smallconfused: I have no idea how you could ever judge distances based on you movement speed - you need to know positioning to judge distances, not movement speed. And looking down at the ground doesn't help, because then I can't see anything else due to the horribly limited perspective - plus in a game like Portal it doesn't show my character's feet, so I can never be sure where precisely I am even trying to look down at the ground, since I can't be certain when I'm looking at the exact spot below me.

You actually can get distances based on your velocity via parallax. Ever notice how when you look out the side-window of a car, the foreground scenery moves past the background quickly? If you measure this effect, and you know how fast you are going, you can tell how far away everything is via some simple trigonometry. You can use the same basic principle to judge the distance of a jump in first person by running towards the edge and looking slightly down: by watching how rapidly the gap expands you can infer its size. It takes a slight bit of practice, but it's plenty doable. You can also keep the camera centered on a particular point, usually the far edge, and observe how rapidly you have to alter the camera angle to keep it in the middle of the screen.

And there's a large number of first person games where your body is visible. Mirror's Edge, Dark Messiah, Duke Nukem Forever, Crysis, etc.



Not seeing how those are different honestly.

Zevox
In Skyrim I take a quest and it sits in my journal until I complete it. In Saint's Row I drive around until I find a mission, and as soon as except I start the actual activity of the mission. Said mission is usually also directly connected to my overall goal in the game.

[GolemsVoice]

TheSummoner already covered this but I'll reiterate: There aren't any dragons outside. Nor is it possible to shout so hard time slows down. Or survive crashing your motorcycle into a tank at a hundred miles an hour without helmet, to put in an example from another game.

Not do I live in Norway, or in an ancient, roman-esque city, nor in an abandoned Russian lab from the 80s, etc. Nor are any of the "NPCs" in the real world a wizard, a renowned dragonslayer, the most elusive man of the Zone, a mutant, I do not know anybody who works for the Mafia, I'm no criminal, I do not posess any firearms, I'm not part of a special weapons and tactics squad, nor a super-soldier who wears a tank and shoots a rocket launcher like he's born for this, which he is.

[Zevox]

You actually can get distances based on your velocity via parallax. Ever notice how when you look out the side-window of a car, the foreground scenery moves past the background quickly? If you measure this effect, and you know how fast you are going, you can tell how far away everything is via some simple trigonometry. You can use the same basic principle to judge the distance of a jump in first person by running towards the edge and looking slightly down: by watching how rapidly the gap expands you can infer its size. It takes a slight bit of practice, but it's plenty doable. You can also keep the camera centered on a particular point, usually the far edge, and observe how rapidly you have to alter the camera angle to keep it in the middle of the screen.
...yeah, I don't see how that would ever work in an on-the-fly situation such as playing a game. It's too easy to misjudge the things that you cannot see, and I do not see the movement of other things helping with that in the least. Maybe if you have the time to sit down and make physics calculations that sort of determination is possible, but that's not what we're discussing.


And there's a large number of first person games where your body is visible. Mirror's Edge, Dark Messiah, Duke Nukem Forever, Crysis, etc.
Unless I'm mistaken, the only one of those that is a platformer is Mirror's Edge. And if the demo of that which I played a while back is any indication, I wouldn't like that either.


In Skyrim I take a quest and it sits in my journal until I complete it. In Saint's Row I drive around until I find a mission, and as soon as except I start the actual activity of the mission. Said mission is usually also directly connected to my overall goal in the game.
Still not seeing a big difference, outside of the "connected to the overall goal of the game" part, which, while potentially an improvement, I don't think merits an entirely different word to describe it.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

...yeah, I don't see how that would ever work in an on-the-fly situation such as playing a game. It's too easy to misjudge the things that you cannot see, and I do not see the movement of other things helping with that in the least. Maybe if you have the time to sit down and make physics calculations that sort of determination is possible, but that's not what we're discussing.

You can learn to do it rapidly and intuitively in your head, same way you can learn to catch a ball. It takes a bit of practice, but I do it in games without any sines, cosines or angles calculated at all.

Actually what you really learn isn't how to get precise distance measurements, but very fast evaluations of whether or not you can make that jump. Which, in context, is all that you need.


Unless I'm mistaken, the only one of those that is a platformer is Mirror's Edge. And if the demo of that which I played a while back is any indication, I wouldn't like that either.

There's quite a bit of jumping in DNF, at least one jumpy segment in Dark Messiah, and (depending how you play) Crysis as well. At some point you figure out that speed and strength modes allow you to be Superman for a few seconds at at time if used right.


Still not seeing a big difference, outside of the "connected to the overall goal of the game" part, which, while potentially an improvement, I don't think merits an entirely different word to describe it.

Zevox
I've played a good bit of both open world RPGs and third person sandbox action games, and they are very different beasts. It's hard to describe, but they really are different.

And not just because Skyrim is tragically devoid of skydiving onto roofs while listening to Kayne West.

[Partysan]

I disagree with those who say that game mechanics do not influence immersion. Yes, the story and characters are important, but those are neccessary, not sufficient conditions for good immersion.
For that matter, I advise people to watch Extra Credits (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits), they have a few episodes on narrative mechanics.

[warty goblin]

I disagree with those who say that game mechanics do not influence immersion. Yes, the story and characters are important, but those are neccessary, not sufficient conditions for good immersion.
For that matter, I advise people to watch Extra Credits (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits), they have a few episodes on narrative mechanics.

I've always figured if you think the emotional impact of your game is anything more than time-killer, and you aren't using the mechanics to further that end, you're probably doing something wrong. Not that your story isn't good, worth telling or anything like that, but that there's no reason to make it a game. If you aren't harnessing the mechanics, might as well write a book.

[Brother Oni]

Once again, immersion does not work that way for me. I either get attached to the characters and the events of the story, or I don't. Nothing about the gameplay mechanics has any effect on that for me. All the first-person viewpoint does for me is add frustrations to the gameplay part.


Have you perhaps considered that perhaps immersion does work that way for other people?

Excuse me if I'm drawing the wrong inference, but as I understand it, because First Person is not immersive for you, it's inherently poor and should be removed.

There's nothing wrong with this subjective view - it's your choice on how you spend your entertainment money and time, but I think the issue is that you appear to be presenting your subjective view as an objective one - as you've seen there are a number of people who disagree with you on this, including me.

In order to clarify my position, I can't play First Person games on the PC as the speed of camera movement makes me motion sick (simulation sickness according to wikipedia), so while I support the view that FP games are more immersive, I don't (or rather can't) play them.

[Zevox]

You can learn to do it rapidly and intuitively in your head, same way you can learn to catch a ball. It takes a bit of practice, but I do it in games without any sines, cosines or angles calculated at all.
I really don't think I could ever do that. Catching a ball is possible because I can watch the ball and still have a sense of where my hands are due to them being connected to my body. I don't have that sort of sense for things within a video game - I have to watch them visually as well, which I can't do in a first-person game.


I've played a good bit of both open world RPGs and third person sandbox action games, and they are very different beasts. It's hard to describe, but they really are different.
Are you sure that's because of the open-world/sandbox parts? RPGs and third-person action games are going to be very different beasts regardless of how large the world is or how many side-quests there are, etc.


I disagree with those who say that game mechanics do not influence immersion. Yes, the story and characters are important, but those are neccessary, not sufficient conditions for good immersion.
I disagree, I can point you to plenty of games I've gotten immersed in on story and characters alone (and can't point you to any instance of anything but story and characters causing me to get "immersed" in a game). The prime example of which being my favorites, Persona 3 and 4, Tales of Vesperia, and Tales of the Abyss.


Have you perhaps considered that perhaps immersion does work that way for other people?

Excuse me if I'm drawing the wrong inference, but as I understand it, because First Person is not immersive for you, it's inherently poor and should be removed.

There's nothing wrong with this subjective view - it's your choice on how you spend your entertainment money and time, but I think the issue is that you appear to be presenting your subjective view as an objective one - as you've seen there are a number of people who disagree with you on this, including me.
Oh, of course. That's why I keep using phrases like "for me" - I'm well aware that this sort of thing is subjective, and tend to assume that others are as well. But we are here to discuss opinions after all, so what else am I to do if not state, discuss, and argue for mine?

Zevox

[Weezer]

...yeah, I don't see how that would ever work in an on-the-fly situation such as playing a game. It's too easy to misjudge the things that you cannot see, and I do not see the movement of other things helping with that in the least. Maybe if you have the time to sit down and make physics calculations that sort of determination is possible, but that's not what we're discussing.


Unless I'm mistaken, the only one of those that is a platformer is Mirror's Edge. And if the demo of that which I played a while back is any indication, I wouldn't like that either.

It's the same way that similar things happen in real life, in real time. Parallax is an important part of human sight and the 1st person viewpoint allows programmers to use this as a part of gameplay. It think it's a major plus.


You're really missing out on Mirror's Edge, it's the only game I have ever played that has really conveyed the feeling of motion. Yeah, its storyline is pretty bad, but the gameplay is excellent, and I've never played a game even close to like it.


As for the whole immersion argument, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm not expecting many people to agree, I have a somewhat extreme view of immersion.
The point that most of my feelings on immersion rests is this: games do not tell good stories. I can count the number of times I actually enjoyed the story as a whole on the fingers of one hand, the games are: Bauldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Half Life 2 and Bioshock. Yup, I know that this may seem a bit extreme, but stories are hard to tell well and gaming as a storytelling medium hasn't progressed much beyond thin excuses for gameplay. Which in my eyes is perfectly fine, because I come to games for the gameplay.

Now on to what I really find drives immersion; gameplay. When a game is immersive I find myself sucked into the gameplay, it is when I am pulled into a game and lose all track of time, my world becomes the game that I call myself 'immersed'. Different games obviously accomplish this in a variety of ways, from Mount & Blade's very close up, precise, individual control of a single character to Heart of Iron III's extreme levels of abstraction. I'm here to play a good game (in this case I'm using the general definition of game, not the video game definition), and good games are not ones that tell a story. Chess is one of, if not the best game of all time, and does it have a story? No. It has gameplay that is incredibly easy to learn, but has an almost limitless depth to it. That is what makes a game good and immersive; engaging, challenging and above all fun gameplay. Things like UI, graphics and perspective can take away immersion when they get in the way of gameplay (Dwarf Fortress is a good example of this, it is a game I love, but its UI seems to go out of its way to make the game hard to play), but they can never create immersion when the foundation game is lacking.

Sorry for that rant there...

EDIT: To kind of sum this all up in my experience story in games very rarely serves any other purpose beyond a technique to plausibly string together different bits of gameplay into a cohesive whole.

[Zevox]

You're really missing out on Mirror's Edge, it's the only game I have ever played that has really conveyed the feeling of motion.
Can't say that I recall that from the demo, though I'll grant that it has been a long time since I played it. On the other hand I also can't say that I see a reason why I'd care if it did. I don't see any reason why I'd enjoy a game just for the "feeling of motion."

Zevox

[Weezer]

Can't say that I recall that from the demo, though I'll grant that it has been a long time since I played it. On the other hand I also can't say that I see reason why I'd care if it did. I don't see any reason why I'd enjoy a game just for the "feeling of motion."

Zevox

Well that's not the only reason to play the game, obviously. It's just one of it's unique characteristics. What in my eyes makes it great is that you actually feel as if you're the one who is running across rooftops, the controls are really tight (for everywhere except for combat), and everything flows surprisingly well. The developers did a great job of subtly pointing the player towards the correct path amongst the chaotic jumble of walls/AC units/scaffolding through which you move. I've dabbled in parkour and when playing it on a number of occasions captured that feel. It's certainly not a perfect game, it has many problems (only one path, too much combat for a running, bad story, complete shift in gameplay focus in the last bit of the game), but it was a really good game.

[Zevox]

Well that's not the only reason to play the game, obviously. It's just one of it's unique characteristics. What in my eyes makes it great is that you actually feel as if you're the one who is running across rooftops, the controls are really tight (for everywhere except for combat), and everything flows surprisingly well. The developers did a great job of subtly pointing the player towards the correct path amongst the chaotic jumble of walls/AC units/scaffolding through which you move. I've dabbled in parkour and when playing it on a number of occasions captured that feel. It's certainly not a perfect game, it has many problems (only one path, too much combat for a running, bad story, complete shift in gameplay focus in the last bit of the game), but it was a really good game.
Yeah, you still don't make it sounds like something I'd like. "You feel as if you're the one running across rooftops?" Highly doubt that'd work for me, and don't see any appeal to it even if it did. Controls have problems in combat? That worries me, since I don't think that a game whose main strength is just running around would hold any appeal to me (especially considering you're doing it in first-person), so the combat not being good would be a huge problem for me. Bad story? Speaks for itself.

I can say that there being only one path through stages wouldn't bother me in the least - I've never encountered a game that I thought was too linear, and I have played Final Fantasy 13 - but the rest make it sound like I made the right decision when I chose not to even rent it after playing the demo.

Zevox

[GolemsVoice]

Yeah, you still don't make it sounds like something I'd like. "You feel as if you're the one running across rooftops?" Highly doubt that'd work for me, and don't see any appeal to it even if it did. Controls have problems in combat? That worries me, since I don't think that a game whose main strength is just running around would hold any appeal to me (especially considering you're doing it in first-person), so the combat not being good would be a huge problem for me. Bad story? Speaks for itself.

Except for the part where he admitted all these things, but said that he liked the feeling of motion. That's immersion for him.

[Weezer]

Yeah, you still don't make it sounds like something I'd like. "You feel as if you're the one running across rooftops?" Highly doubt that'd work for me, and don't see any appeal to it even if it did. Controls have problems in combat? That worries me, since I don't think that a game whose main strength is just running around would hold any appeal to me (especially considering you're doing it in first-person), so the combat not being good would be a huge problem for me. Bad story? Speaks for itself.

I can say that there being only one path through stages wouldn't bother me in the least - I've never encountered a game that I thought was too linear, and I have played Final Fantasy 13 - but the rest make it sound like I made the right decision when I chose not to even rent it after playing the demo.

Zevox

Yeah, it doesn't seem like your type of game. The game is essentially based around the idea of getting from A to B as fast as possible, which doesn't seem to appeal to you. (Though why feeling like you're running across roofs is not a selling point, I can't understand, but that's probably just me).

[Brother Oni]

Oh, of course. That's why I keep using phrases like "for me" - I'm well aware that this sort of thing is subjective, and tend to assume that others are as well. But we are here to discuss opinions after all, so what else am I to do if not state, discuss, and argue for mine?

The issue is that subjective views are very hard to change, sometimes to the point that it's virtually impossible (and pointless) to attempt to do so.

In my opinion, first person and third person views are just tools and should be used appropriately according to what the game is trying to achieve.

Shooters (a genre which you admit to not playing) work better in first person view - any third person shooter I've played either has a FP view when you zoom in, or an autoaim function.

Games where real time melee plays a significant component, work better in third person due to the disconnect enforced by the media as you've noted.

Horror games tend to be very dependent - as noted earlier, you've anomalies like the Fatal Frame series which combines the two.

The Silent Hill series works better in Third Person since the unusual camera angles and the fact that you are conscious of how much of the game world you can't 'see' due to the darkness adds to the horror. It's the only game I know where I've gotten into a lift and noticed 'crap, that's a lot of black unseen space behind me' and ended up cowering in a corner with my torch so I knew nothing could creep up on me.
Other people can comment better than me on the first person horror sub genre, primarily the Stalker, Fear and Doom series.

I can vouch for the perspective issue in Third Person platform games - for every perfectly done Mario 64/Galaxy, there's a Castlevania:Legacy of Darkness or Soul Reaver.

Likewise there are a number of innovative games that take an genre and presents in a different way (Mirror's Edge as mentioned earlier, a FP game that would traditionally be done in TP).

[Zevox]

Yeah, it doesn't seem like your type of game. The game is essentially based around the idea of getting from A to B as fast as possible, which doesn't seem to appeal to you.
Indeed. That's much the reason why I don't bother with racing games, for example. Just don't see anything I particularly like in them.

Zevox

[Terraoblivion]

And having given it some thought I have one to add. Male models so muscular that they would be unable to bend their elbows, walk without waddling or look to the sides have got to go. Not only do they look ridiculous and exist solely to cater to male fantasies, actual studies exist suggesting that they're as harsh on the body image of teenage boys as models photoshopped to be inhumanly skinny are on teenage girls.

[Zevox]

And having given it some thought I have one to add. Male models so muscular that they would be unable to bend their elbows, walk without waddling or look to the sides have got to go. Not only do they look ridiculous and exist solely to cater to male fantasies, actual studies exist suggesting that they're as harsh on the body image of teenage boys as models photoshopped to be inhumanly skinny are on teenage girls.
Yeah, I really hated that art style in Street Fighter 4. And it looks like they're keeping it in Street Fighter x Tekken as well. Ugly stuff.

Zevox

[Starwulf]

And having given it some thought I have one to add. Male models so muscular that they would be unable to bend their elbows, walk without waddling or look to the sides have got to go. Not only do they look ridiculous and exist solely to cater to male fantasies, actual studies exist suggesting that they're as harsh on the body image of teenage boys as models photoshopped to be inhumanly skinny are on teenage girls.

I will be honest and say I find that extremely hard to believe(the studies bit). What teenage boy is going to look at those images and think "oh man, I'm never going to be a real man, or attractive, unless I have bulging muscles on my bulging muscles"? I mean, seriously, body builders that actually LOOK like that are a very small minority, and I can certainly say, that I have never met ANYONE that looks like that, or know anyone that would EVER want to look like that. I mean, the models for women thing, yeah, that makes good sense, but teenage boys comparing themselves to video game images of men with so many muscles that it would logically be impossible to function? No, I don't believe that for a minute. Those studies are quite likely to be as bogus as they come.

[warty goblin]

And having given it some thought I have one to add. Male models so muscular that they would be unable to bend their elbows, walk without waddling or look to the sides have got to go. Not only do they look ridiculous and exist solely to cater to male fantasies, actual studies exist suggesting that they're as harsh on the body image of teenage boys as models photoshopped to be inhumanly skinny are on teenage girls.

On the subject of annoying art, can I add pauldrons so oversized that the character can no longer raise his arms to the horizontal without smacking himself upside the head? Because that one always bugs me. I don't mind stylized art, but that particular one is so immediately and obviously stupid.

[Weezer]

Except it's not just video game characters, the whole "you need to be buff and muscular to be a man" pervades our culture to a ridiculous extent. It's more obvious and drastic in games because they can sculpt the figure to be exactly what they want, but it's incredibly rare to find a male model or actor shirtless who doesn't have 6-pack abs.

[Dienekes]

On the subject of annoying art, can I add pauldrons so oversized that the character can no longer raise his arms to the horizontal without smacking himself upside the head? Because that one always bugs me. I don't mind stylized art, but that particular one is so immediately and obviously stupid.

I'll do you one further. Mind you I play through it, but I find myself getting increasingly annoyed by weapons and armor that look impractical or stupid to the point of ridiculousness. The Buster Sword and it's numerous similar variants being the prime example, as well as the pauldrons of scoliosis as you point out. In honesty I find over-sized ridiculous swords more grotesque looking than the much maligned Liefeld style body-builder men.

I also have a deep seated loathing for alignment meters, the only one I have even the smallest token of respect for being DAO since they technically didn't have alignment just how much your allies liked you. I particularly hate them when not having a certain alignment score means my character can't say what I want him to say, ME2 being the biggest example. In most cases I don't think that makes sense and actively limits my character choice.

[warty goblin]

I'll do you one further. Mind you I play through it, but I find myself getting increasingly annoyed by weapons and armor that look impractical or stupid to the point of ridiculousness. The Buster Sword and it's numerous similar variants being the prime example, as well as the pauldrons of scoliosis as you point out. In honesty I find over-sized ridiculous swords more grotesque looking than the much maligned Liefeld style body-builder men.

Also true, although I've found by disengaging the part of my brain that takes things seriously I'm OK with it. Otherwise I'd be limited pretty much to Mount and Blade and the Witcher games.

I don't mind some slight size exaggeration in a third person game. I need to be able to see the sword after all, and the camera might be far enough back it's hard to do that for a 100% realistically sized blade. But outside of very special circumstances the sword should still look like a sword as far as I'm concerned. A few thousand years of constant evolution and refinement the world over has produced some remarkably varied, beautiful and effective weapons, I see no reason not to stick with those.

(By the way, you might enjoy this website (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/British_and_European.htm). I stumbled on it the other night by chance, and that guy's work is phenomenal. Sword Related Reason #276 to amass significant personal wealth I suppose.)

[Zeful]

I will be honest and say I find that extremely hard to believe(the studies bit). What teenage boy is going to look at those images and think "oh man, I'm never going to be a real man, or attractive, unless I have bulging muscles on my bulging muscles"? I mean, seriously, body builders that actually LOOK like that are a very small minority, and I can certainly say, that I have never met ANYONE that looks like that, or know anyone that would EVER want to look like that. I mean, the models for women thing, yeah, that makes good sense, but teenage boys comparing themselves to video game images of men with so many muscles that it would logically be impossible to function? No, I don't believe that for a minute. Those studies are quite likely to be as bogus as they come.

Then obviously you aren't and haven't met men with extreme self-image problems.

Hi. :smallannoyed:
As one of those men I can tell you that it's not the image that's the problem, It's the mindset behind it. The image itself is stupid as you point out (but it's a power fantasy image, it's kinda like that), but it doesn't change the societal expectation of men in this culture. I for all of my thin, wiry build am supposed to work out obsessively until I look like Kratos, Adonis, or some other "manly man" and that's not happening with my build.

Criticize it all you like, just accept that your criticism has nothing to do with the reality of the issue.

[TheSummoner]

So... I thought of another one that I don't remember beign mentioned (it may have been... but if it was, I just skimmed over/forgot it)...

Chainmail bikinis. Female armor so ridiculous that in a realistic situation, wearing it would do more harm than good.

"Hey, I have an idea! I'm gonna put on this heavy piece of metal meant to protect me from being hurt if someone hits me!"
"Good idea!"
"Yeah, and it's got all these missing bits for t3h secksay. It only covers 13% of my body!"
"Err..."

Now that's immersion breaking for me. I get that sex sells, but it's kinda impossible for me to take a female swordfighter seriously if she's dressed like a stripper. In the perfect world where I actually get to make my own games, there will only be one item of this sort, a literal chainmail bikini that has aweful stats and is only valuable as a novelty/joke item. And covers just as little when worn by male characters.

[Zevox]

So... I thought of another one that I don't remember beign mentioned (it may have been... but if it was, I just skimmed over/forgot it)...

Chainmail bikinis. Female armor so ridiculous that in a realistic situation, wearing it would do more harm than good.

"Hey, I have an idea! I'm gonna put on this heavy piece of metal meant to protect me from being hurt if someone hits me!"
"Good idea!"
"Yeah, and it's got all these missing bits for t3h secksay. It only covers 13% of my body!"
"Err..."

Now that's immersion breaking for me. I get that sex sells, but it's kinda impossible for me to take a female swordfighter seriously if she's dressed like a stripper. In the perfect world where I actually get to make my own games, there will only be one item of this sort, a literal chainmail bikini that has aweful stats and is only valuable as a novelty/joke item. And covers just as little when worn by male characters.
Eeyup, stripperific female armor - and stripperific female outfits in general, unless there's an in-character reason they're wearing it - is something I'd wholeheartedly support getting rid of as well. Maybe we could start with the Soul Calibur series.

Zevox

[MCerberus]

Eeyup, stripperific female armor - and stripperific female outfits in general, unless there's an in-character reason they're wearing it - is something I'd wholeheartedly support getting rid of as well. Maybe we could start with the Soul Calibur series.

Zevox

Interesting sexism in game development snippet: The female character in the game Bulletstorm had one female dev constantly toning it down from what the male coworkers thought players wanted.


Midriff not withstanding, I liked Jade from Beyond Good & Evil as one of the voiced not-completely-stupid main characters. On the other end are games like Mass Effect 2.

Oh boy, the 'bad girl' archetype. I hate every word out of her mouth. Yes, Bioware, I am male, but don't make me have to UNLOCK a shirt so I don't have to look at the weird fetish-thing you've decided to do.

[Zevox]

On the other end are games like Mass Effect 2.

Oh boy, the 'bad girl' archetype. I hate every word out of her mouth. Yes, Bioware, I am male, but don't make me have to UNLOCK a shirt so I don't have to look at the weird fetish-thing you've decided to do.
I'm assuming you're referring to Jack, and I'm going to have to disagree on that one. Her outfit makes total sense for her character - a lot of her self-image revolves around how tough she believes herself to be because of what she suffered in Cerberus' facility, and she flaunts this. Thanks to her biotics, she can also get away with it on a practical level, since she has biotic barriers to substitute for armor in combat. She's an example of a well-written character who has a darn good reason to look like she does, not at all an example of a character put in a skimpy outfit just for sex appeal to consumers.

Zevox

[TheSummoner]

not at all an example of a character put in a skimpy outfit just for sex appeal to consumers.

Rather a character written in a specific way so they could put her in a skimpy outfit for sex appeal to consumers.

[Trazoi]

Worst is when a game has equippable armour where the full chainmail vest on male characters magically transforms into a chainmail bikini on female characters.

No, Temple of Elemental Evil, I don't want to put my halfling paladin in a chainmail bikini. :smallannoyed:

[Weezer]

Rather a character written in a specific way so they could put her in a skimpy outfit for sex appeal to consumers.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.

[Starwulf]

Then obviously you aren't and haven't met men with extreme self-image problems.

Hi. :smallannoyed:
As one of those men I can tell you that it's not the image that's the problem, It's the mindset behind it. The image itself is stupid as you point out (but it's a power fantasy image, it's kinda like that), but it doesn't change the societal expectation of men in this culture. I for all of my thin, wiry build am supposed to work out obsessively until I look like Kratos, Adonis, or some other "manly man" and that's not happening with my build.

Criticize it all you like, just accept that your criticism has nothing to do with the reality of the issue.

The problem is, is I don't see it as a reality. I've never seen or come across any man(men whom I know, and men whom I don't) that feel the need to look super buff. Hell, I dealt with many self-image problems and self-worth problems for many years(including taking meds for bi-polar), and I've still never felt the need to go out and make myself this absolutely ripped stud-muffin of glory. To get myself in shape? Sure, everyone should want to be in-shape, it's healthy. To be a mass of muscle such as Terraoblivion was suggesting? Hell no, and again, I've never come across anyone that's felt such a way, and I've certainly never come across the expectation that all men in today's society should look like that. Honestly, I've come across more people who think the absolutely ripped look is quite disgusting and should be banned, then those who think it looks ok(Ok, I've NEVER come across anyone who thinks super ripped body builders look good).

TL;DR: Distinct, NON-fine line between "Being in Shape" and "Being so muscular that you can't even move".

[Zeful]

Which I point out as not being the issue. The reason those images are drawn aren't to make people want to work out (and in thinking so you actually miss the entire point). It's an application of the same "You suck because you aren't this person" brand of applied popular consciousness (which also applies to modeling). It's why it's called a "power fantasy". The "overly muscular man" who in real life wouldn't be able to walk or move in real life, exemplifies the concept of masculinity as in possessing raw personal power. The image pretty much plays on the unconscious desire hardwired into the male brain because we were the hunters. It's realism or lack thereof isn't the point (after all Master Chief is barely realistic once you realize how large he's supposed to be in that armor, and you aren't complaining about that), hell I've had martial arts training, and know that raw strength is less useful in most of the situations you'd want it in and I still feel insecure when confronted with hypermasculine characters, because those images aren't about rationality, it's about psychology. They (the "overly muscled man" images) are designed to appeal to the desire of strength and personal power by exemplifying those characteristic in as pure a fashion as possible. Yeah, they're stupid images, and wouldn't work in reality, but that's very much not the point.

[TheSummoner]

The problem is, is I don't see it as a reality. I've never seen or come across any man(men whom I know, and men whom I don't) that feel the need to look super buff. Hell, I dealt with many self-image problems and self-worth problems for many years(including taking meds for bi-polar), and I've still never felt the need to go out and make myself this absolutely ripped stud-muffin of glory. To get myself in shape? Sure, everyone should want to be in-shape, it's healthy. To be a mass of muscle such as Terraoblivion was suggesting? Hell no, and again, I've never come across anyone that's felt such a way, and I've certainly never come across the expectation that all men in today's society should look like that. Honestly, I've come across more people who think the absolutely ripped look is quite disgusting and should be banned, then those who think it looks ok(Ok, I've NEVER come across anyone who thinks super ripped body builders look good).

TL;DR: Distinct, NON-fine line between "Being in Shape" and "Being so muscular that you can't even move".

I've never come across any guys who feel the need to look super buff, but I can see that sort of thing being a problem. Think of it this way...

Have you ever met any women who actually thought that looking like a thin layer of flesh stretched across a skeleton was attractive? I haven't, but there are plenty of girls out there suffering from anorexia. Plenty who have such a negative body image that they starve themselves and induce vomitting because of their warped body image. It's the same sort of unrealistic body image portrayed by the media that can cause people to think that that sort of thing is the norm. That that sort of thing is what they should look like. It doesn't matter how healthy it is because the sort of people affected have such a warped body image that they don't care whether it's healthy or natural or not.

[Zevox]

Rather a character written in a specific way so they could put her in a skimpy outfit for sex appeal to consumers.
Seems very doubtful to me. It's not like she was a shallow, poorly-written character, she was one of the game's best, including a loyalty mission that had probably the least fighting and the most character development out of any of them. Besides, if the point was just to put her in a skimpy outfit, why make her a character with so many traits that will kill her sex appeal to many people - the shaved head, plethora of tattoos covering so much of her body that you can hardly tell she's not wearing much besides pants, and small breasts?

No, Jack's just plain an excellent example of why you can't universally say that a female character in a skimpy outfit is always a bad thing, and why that should not be discounted as a character trait on all characters. The problem is it being used on characters for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the "sex sells" truism.

Zevox

[Starwulf]

Which I point out as not being the issue. The reason those images are drawn aren't to make people want to work out (and in thinking so you actually miss the entire point). It's an application of the same "You suck because you aren't this person" brand of applied popular consciousness (which also applies to modeling). It's why it's called a "power fantasy". The "overly muscular man" who in real life wouldn't be able to walk or move in real life, exemplifies the concept of masculinity as in possessing raw personal power. The image pretty much plays on the unconscious desire hardwired into the male brain because we were the hunters. It's realism or lack thereof isn't the point (after all Master Chief is barely realistic once you realize how large he's supposed to be in that armor, and you aren't complaining about that), hell I've had martial arts training, and know that raw strength is less useful in most of the situations you'd want it in and I still feel insecure when confronted with hypermasculine characters, because those images aren't about rationality, it's about psychology. They (the "overly muscled man" images) are designed to appeal to the desire of strength and personal power by exemplifying those characteristic in as pure a fashion as possible. Yeah, they're stupid images, and wouldn't work in reality, but that's very much not the point.

Sooo...what is the point then? I was arguing with Terraoblivion saying that those images of "Hypermasculinity" as you put it, don't actually cause the same issues in males that super skinny models do in females, and I still stick by that point.

I don't see society pushing men to look like that. I don't see society portraying Hyper-masculinity as the way to be, and to be anything less makes you less of a man. I even posed this question to my wife, and she agrees with me, she doesn't think society is particularly pushing that as any sort of a standard. And earlier, you mentioned that it's seen across all forms of media, men with six-pack abs(which, btw, is quite a bit different from the Hyper-masculinity portrayed in games like SF4 and what not), but I can multiple actors that ultra-popular and ultra-successful right off the top of my head that aren't muscular, and don't have 6-pack abs: Jim Carrey, Vince Vaughn, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Kevin James, in his prime John Travolta didn't exactly have six-pack abs either, Rob Pattinson is certainly not bulked up, and look at the massive craze over him, much more so then Taylor Lautner, who DOES have the 6-pack abs. The guy from "Get him to the Greek", the one who recently lost a lot weight. The kid who has been in a few movies with the previously mentioned person, the one from "Scott Pilgrim vs the world". I could go on and on, but I hope that's enough to prove my point. The day of the "Brad Pitts" and "Tom Cruises" and "Matthew McCouneghy" are on the way out. I see many more stars whom aren't in peak physical shape then I do that are, and quite often, even the ones who are on Peak physical shape, have often done so in order to better portray a certain character in a movie, like the main guy from "300", when he was interviewed about his physical shape, he specifically stated he had to work out non-stop day in and day out to get that body, and just a few short months after filming was done, he had already lost a good deal of that body.

Maybe in the past 6-pack abs(which, again, is far different from what Terraoblivion was suggesting about the Hyper-masculine guys with bulging muscles on their bulging muscles) was the standard, but in today's society, I definitely feel as though we've moved past that. Even the "Super Skinny Model" look is on it's way out. So, I still disagree with you, society does not portray men such as Kratos(less a bulging muscle on my bulging muscle, and more of a, "very well defined 6-pack") as being the ideal.

[factotum]

Besides, if the point was just to put her in a skimpy outfit, why make her a character with so many traits that will kill her sex appeal to many people - the shaved head, plethora of tattoos covering so much of her body that you can hardly tell she's not wearing much besides pants, and small breasts?


I'd have to agree there--if they'd wanted a "sex sells" thing in Mass Effect 2 they'd have had Miranda turn up in a bikini for no reason at some point. (Heck, even if you romance Miranda you get a brief bra shot and that's about it...there was more nudity in the original game!). It's notable that the only female characters in ME2 who feel they can wear stripperific armour are powerful biotics, who generally rely on their power to protect them anyway, so it fits in perfectly with the setting.

[Zevox]

It's notable that the only female characters in ME2 who feel they can wear stripperific armour are powerful biotics, who generally rely on their power to protect them anyway, so it fits in perfectly with the setting.
Hm, when you say that in the plural I'm reminded that Samara and Morinth sort of qualify as well, with their cleavage-exposing jumpsuits. Morinth makes sense since she's a sexual predator (and she was pretending to be Samara anyway - and actually the outfit she wears before she starts impersonating Samara doesn't expose anything, so I guess the sexual predator thing doesn't factor in at all), but Samara makes less sense. Yes she has her biotics, but she doesn't have a reason to be exposing herself like Jack's trauma and need to be seen as a huge badass gives her. Granted Samara's is just showing some cleavage, not a full stripperfic outfit, but considering her line of work as a space-Paladin it is certainly questionable.

Zevox

[Bouregard]

Mooks, especially zombies, who die very quickly but still kill you very quickly as well, would be nice to see. Take away the 'stay in cover, shoot one enemy, duck, regen health, repeat' for hours and have me walk into a room of enemies and shoot my clip empty at the fifteen guys there and if even one's still alive when I start reloading, I'm most likely dead.

A zombie game would be way more interesting without all kinds of mutation forms or whatever, except perhaps as bosses, but with actually thousands of zombies everywhere that die in one headshot or can be killed easily in a couple bodyshots as well, where the objective isn't to kill all zombies but to, for example, reach safety. Not enough ammunition to survive, and a single hit by a zombie infects you and leads to (perhaps only almost) unavoidable death (unless there's some mechanic to cure infection in its early stages). No meleeing zombies unless absolutely desperate, no shooting through a horde to loot a room that you don't actually need to visit, no 'zombie horde' where there's eight of them and they each take half a clip of your bullets to kill.

Project Zomboid is your friend then. Slow shuffling zombies just like those from Shaun of the Dead.

[Thiyr]

Mooks, especially zombies, who die very quickly but still kill you very quickly as well, would be nice to see. Take away the 'stay in cover, shoot one enemy, duck, regen health, repeat' for hours and have me walk into a room of enemies and shoot my clip empty at the fifteen guys there and if even one's still alive when I start reloading, I'm most likely dead.

A zombie game would be way more interesting without all kinds of mutation forms or whatever, except perhaps as bosses, but with actually thousands of zombies everywhere that die in one headshot or can be killed easily in a couple bodyshots as well, where the objective isn't to kill all zombies but to, for example, reach safety. Not enough ammunition to survive, and a single hit by a zombie infects you and leads to (perhaps only almost) unavoidable death (unless there's some mechanic to cure infection in its early stages). No meleeing zombies unless absolutely desperate, no shooting through a horde to loot a room that you don't actually need to visit, no 'zombie horde' where there's eight of them and they each take half a clip of your bullets to kill.

Honestly, I like that idea, which is why I've been playing Killing Floor the way I have been. get the Faked Players and Clotbuster mutators to fight just against the basic, normal zombie, and play a game where it's you vs a horde designed to be taken apart by, say, 15 people. There are more zombies than there are bullets, and on higher difficulties, one bullet won't do it. And if one hits you, you're stuck till you kill it. You vs 200+ = delightfully fun attempt at survival.

And on the subject of masculinity as ideal, I'd say that it's a bit more subtle of a problem than the gender-inverse. The super-massive dudes in real life just look kinda...terrifying, but that's more comparable to women who are so skinny as to just be almost pure bone. But in fiction, you get your Chris Redfields (I choose him just because he's the only character I can think of offhand who had his muscles notably shrink purely to have a retro-costume work. Seriously, compare his normal stuff in RE5 to his RCPD costume) as something that's held up as the high point. It's the same thing as the chainmail bikini, in a sense, but it's less blatant than the whole "sex sells" bit. Between males who -do- think that way being quieter about it in general (due to the prevailing mindset in culture that the guy should just go do something about it), and guys being the target audience as well as the subject of the "enhancement", means that it's not perceived as a problem. I'd actually make a comparison to another problem which is similarly not seen as a problem due to the perceived culture of males, but that'd be just a -bit- outside of what's appropriate for these forums.

[GolemsVoice]

Hm, when you say that in the plural I'm reminded that Samara and Morinth sort of qualify as well, with their cleavage-exposing jumpsuits. Morinth makes sense since she's a sexual predator (and she was pretending to be Samara anyway - and actually the outfit she wears before she starts impersonating Samara doesn't expose anything, so I guess the sexual predator thing doesn't factor in at all), but Samara makes less sense. Yes she has her biotics, but she doesn't have a reason to be exposing herself like Jack's trauma and need to be seen as a huge badass gives her. Granted Samara's is just showing some cleavage, not a full stripperfic outfit, but considering her line of work as a space-Paladin it is certainly questionable.

Oh yes. I like looking at beautiful women just as much as the next guy, but hey, Samara, you're a fighter who is tough as nails. You've hunted down your children. Put somehting sensible one, because even your biotic barriers won't help you run in those boots.

[MLai]

I don't think it's too big an issue for men, because:

(1) Women statistically like a full spectrum of male characteristics. Some like brawny, some like effeminate, some like average, etc. More varied than men's standards.

(2) It's something you can do something about (work out, go to the gym), and actually be healthier and more social for doing so. And please, don't tell me you become less social for working out. Most ppl join a gym rather than work out in their basement. Being in a public place with lots of like-minded ppl, and often needing spotting, means you're socializing.

I think the far bigger issue for males is penis size, since that's not something a man can do something about, and there's no "spectrum of female preference" to fudge over. Girth is girth. More is more, less is less.

[Gamerlord]

1. Regenerating health.
2. Smearing jelly all over my screen when I'm low on health.
3. Quick Time Events.
4. Unskippable cutscenes.
5. Unskippable tutorials.
6. Checkpoint systems. I want to be able to save wherever I want, whenever I want.
7. Chain mail bikinis.

[ShinyRocks]

Ooh, ooh, I've got one!

Games, supposedly action-based games, in which you cannot jump. I've played the Daggerdale and Kingdoms of Amalur demos this weekend. Daggerdale is a bit rubbish, Amalur seems quite good. But they're both billed as action RPGs and you can't even jump. In Mass Effect, Shepard can't jump (though maybe in ME3?).

I understand the reasons for it. There are only so many buttons that can be mapped to (especially on a console game). The ability to jump changes what areas are accessible and the game has to be (re)designed accordingly. It's not as much of a priority as the ability to, you know, attack people or bring up your inventory. And maybe it's just a hangover from my days of playing Warcraft and tapping the spacebar constantly. Jump jump jump jump.

But yes. 'Inability to jump' is a common video game element that I wish would disappear. It feels incredibly jarring and unnatural to me, and totally jerks me out of being properly immersed in a game.

Oh, and add me to the list for hating obscenely overmuscled male characters. To go back to WoW, I can understand why, say, Taurens and Orcs would be super-stacked. But even Blood Elves are given beer keg biceps.

[OracleofWuffing]

I just had a pretty nice game get ruined by the one thing that really ticks me off in 3D Games getting shoehorned in to the last boss.

Game in question:
Super Mario 3D Land

The character you're controlling runs towards the camera.

It is not fun. It is not cinematic. It is not dramatic. It's not interesting. Ever. It is unintuitive. It is annoying. It is little different than QTEs. If, at any point in the game, I am controlling a character who is running into the camera, shut up, send the game back, fire whoever thought that was a good idea, and fix it.

Yes, I know, it's a petty and trivial world's-smallest-violin first-world-nation complaint. But I want to never see it again. No, I didn't have any problems playing it. It is just, and yes this is just my opinion and I'll probably get ten billion people disagreeing with me on this, stupid.

[Zevox]

Ooh, ooh, I've got one!

Games, supposedly action-based games, in which you cannot jump. I've played the Daggerdale and Kingdoms of Amalur demos this weekend. Daggerdale is a bit rubbish, Amalur seems quite good. But they're both billed as action RPGs and you can't even jump. In Mass Effect, Shepard can't jump (though maybe in ME3?).

I understand the reasons for it. There are only so many buttons that can be mapped to (especially on a console game). The ability to jump changes what areas are accessible and the game has to be (re)designed accordingly. It's not as much of a priority as the ability to, you know, attack people or bring up your inventory. And maybe it's just a hangover from my days of playing Warcraft and tapping the spacebar constantly. Jump jump jump jump.

But yes. 'Inability to jump' is a common video game element that I wish would disappear. It feels incredibly jarring and unnatural to me, and totally jerks me out of being properly immersed in a game.
For those where it would serve a purpose, I agree. In Mass Effect I really don't see it accomplishing anything, but in the Kingdoms of Amalur demo I did kind of wish it was in there. It would bring the game closer to the over-the-top action games that clearly inspired the gameplay anyway, like Devil May Cry, and you'd think that a sandbox-y game like that would want to include jumping as another way to get around and explore.

Zevox

[Mewtarthio]

I understand the reasons for it. There are only so many buttons that can be mapped to (especially on a console game). The ability to jump changes what areas are accessible and the game has to be (re)designed accordingly. It's not as much of a priority as the ability to, you know, attack people or bring up your inventory. And maybe it's just a hangover from my days of playing Warcraft and tapping the spacebar constantly. Jump jump jump jump.

But yes. 'Inability to jump' is a common video game element that I wish would disappear. It feels incredibly jarring and unnatural to me, and totally jerks me out of being properly immersed in a game.

Is jumping really that useful in real life? I mean, sure you can clear small gaps and the like, but that works just fine with context-sensitive commands ("Press 'Interact' at the gap to jump over it") or even as an automatic part of running (eg the 3D Zelda games or the "Free Run" command in Assassin's Creed). I just don't think jumping's all that necessary outside a platformer.

[Zevox]

Is jumping really that useful in real life? I mean, sure you can clear small gaps and the like, but that works just fine with context-sensitive commands ("Press 'Interact' at the gap to jump over it") or even as an automatic part of running (eg the 3D Zelda games or the "Free Run" command in Assassin's Creed). I just don't think jumping's all that necessary outside a platformer.
Jumping attacks. Plus video game characters tend to be able to jump higher and further than most people can in real life.

Zevox

[Jahkaivah]

Is jumping really that useful in real life? I mean, sure you can clear small gaps and the like, but that works just fine with context-sensitive commands ("Press 'Interact' at the gap to jump over it") or even as an automatic part of running (eg the 3D Zelda games or the "Free Run" command in Assassin's Creed). I just don't think jumping's all that necessary outside a platformer.

Something I feel is a golden rule for game development: If you're not going to allow jumping in a genre where one is normally able to jump, expect the player to feel rooted to the ground and for this to bug the hell out of them.

[MCerberus]

1. Regenerating health.
2. Smearing jelly all over my screen when I'm low on health.

My friends and I have a theory regarding this. The main character is actually some sort of construct made of nano-jelly. When you're punctured, the nano-jelly spills everywhere. You need to collect it so it can be reabsorbed or you'll die.

[Lord Seth]

I just had a pretty nice game get ruined by the one thing that really ticks me off in 3D Games getting shoehorned in to the last boss.

Game in question:
Super Mario 3D Land

The character you're controlling runs towards the camera.

It is not fun. It is not cinematic. It is not dramatic. It's not interesting. Ever.I thought it was fine in Sonic Adventure 1 and 2.


It is unintuitive. It is annoying. It is little different than QTEs.I don't see how it's like a QTE at all.

I will say, though, that I didn't like it in Super Mario 3D Land. But not the mere presence of it. I actually liked the idea...the problem was the execution. For people who need to know: At the end of the boss fight, there's a part where Mario is running towards the camera with Bowser following. Every so often there's a bunch of blocks in your way that you either have to avoid them or else you'll get stopped and Bowser catches up with you. The issue is that there's not enough time between seeing the blocks and being able to have Mario jump over them or avoid them, so it kind of turns into trial and error gameplay unless you get lucky with your jumps. I think if the camera had zoomed out more so you could see the blocks coming and have more reaction time, it would've been fine.

[OracleofWuffing]

I thought it was fine in Sonic Adventure 1 and 2.
:smallannoyed: No, not even then. (Again, my opinion. Why am I suddenly not able to see where my character is going because no reason at all?)


I don't see how it's like a QTE at all.
...
Every so often there's a bunch of blocks in your way that you either have to avoid them or else you'll get stopped...
If you're saying that's not a QTE, than QTE means something vastly different than I thought it did. In section A, you're running along and then instantaneously something appears and you need to press a button or else. In section B, you're running along and then instantaneously you are told to press a button or else. I really don't understand how they're different?

[Trazoi]

:smallannoyed: No, not even then. (Again, my opinion. Why am I suddenly not able to see where my character is going because no reason at all?)
I know it's down to personal opinion, but one of my favourite parts in Beyond Good and Evil involves a sequence running into the camera. It worked (at least if I remember it right) because the main danger was what was coming behind you - while there were occasional jumps to make they were pretty easy, the main threat were the attacks from the enemies chasing behind.

[GolemsVoice]

Oh, and add me to the list for hating obscenely overmuscled male characters. To go back to WoW, I can understand why, say, Taurens and Orcs would be super-stacked. But even Blood Elves are given beer keg biceps.

Apparently on popular demand, however.

[MLai]

Players want to be able to be Elves and still have bodybuilder muscles? What a bunch of spoiled brats. F--- that, if they want to be elves they should have to take whole package! :smallyuk:

I personally don't see a problem with only context-sensitive jumping, in a game that tries to be realistic. FPS-type jumping looks so ridiculously fake. And also yes, jumping is not that useful IRL.

[ShinyRocks]

Something I feel is a golden rule for game development: If you're not going to allow jumping in a genre where one is normally able to jump, expect the player to feel rooted to the ground and for this to bug the hell out of them.

This. Obviously jumping isn't the biggest deal. It didn't matter that Shepard can't jump; the context-jumping in Final Fantasy XIII was fine. But if I expect (maybe through my own delusions, maybe through the context of an action-based game) that my character should be able to, it makes me feel lumpen and heavy and trapped.

Also, yeah, I remember hearing that the Belves were made muscular due to player demand. In some ways, fine, give the people what they want. But in others, it just bugs me. I kind of feel like the designers should have the courage of their convictions, and avoid the silly gender dimorphism that leads to gigantic redwood men and little sapling women. Wearing chainmail bikinis.

[MLai]

Gears of War had no jumping button. I didn't feel any loss of FPS action goodness.

[Gamerlord]

Gears of War had no jumping button. I didn't feel any loss of FPS action goodness.
Isn't GoW a Third Person Shooter? :smallconfused:

[TheSummoner]

Ok, how about this one... Games that feel the need to hold the player's hand at every turn.

"Hello, [Player]. Could you find my lost toy? I can't seem to find it."

LOCATION OF OBJECTIVE CLEARLY MARKED ON MINIMAP WITH BIG GLOWING ARROWS GUIDING YOU TO IT

Or another one I hate. Achievements. I despise achievements in games. It's an annoying little trend that allows developers to artificially lengthen a game without actually having to add any more content.

"You turned the game on! Achievement!" "You beat the first boss! Achievement!" "You died! Achievement!"

Not only is it annoying and often counter-intuitive, but it's immersion breaking as (Insert Profanity)! I neither need nor do I want a little window popping up in the middle of my game telling me that I just did the thing that I just did. I'm well aware that I did the thing I just did. No one cares. Quit bothering me.

[Kzickas]

Achievements can be a good way to suggest various self imposed challanges to people who otherwise wouldn't consider it but I don't like the way they are being used either

[Mewtarthio]

Not only is it annoying and often counter-intuitive, but it's immersion breaking as (Insert Profanity)! I neither need nor do I want a little window popping up in the middle of my game telling me that I just did the thing that I just did. I'm well aware that I did the thing I just did. No one cares. Quit bothering me.

I just turn the notifications off. Haven't had a problem since. Though I have to wonder exactly who though those notifications were a good idea...

[Lord Seth]

Ok, how about this one... Games that feel the need to hold the player's hand at every turn.

"Hello, [Player]. Could you find my lost toy? I can't seem to find it."

LOCATION OF OBJECTIVE CLEARLY MARKED ON MINIMAP WITH BIG GLOWING ARROWS GUIDING YOU TO ITIt's a heck of a lot better than having to wander around having no idea where to find it. Definitely was a major help in Sonic Rush Adventure.

[Lord Seth]

:smallannoyed: No, not even then.Well, what was wrong with it, then? It was never problematic from what I remember in those games. Maybe you can say the sequences were a little pointless (all you really did was have to hold forward), but the different vantage wasn't difficult in any way.



If you're saying that's not a QTE, than QTE means something vastly different than I thought it did. In section A, you're running along and then instantaneously something appears and you need to press a button or else. In section B, you're running along and then instantaneously you are told to press a button or else. I really don't understand how they're different?A Quick Time Event is when something pops up during a cut scene and you have to react to it. By definition, something that occurs in the gameplay itself is not a quick time event.

[Zevox]

Or another one I hate. Achievements. I despise achievements in games. It's an annoying little trend that allows developers to artificially lengthen a game without actually having to add any more content.

"You turned the game on! Achievement!" "You beat the first boss! Achievement!" "You died! Achievement!"

Not only is it annoying and often counter-intuitive, but it's immersion breaking as (Insert Profanity)! I neither need nor do I want a little window popping up in the middle of my game telling me that I just did the thing that I just did. I'm well aware that I did the thing I just did. No one cares. Quit bothering me.
I don't hate them as much as you do, but I do agree that they're pointless. The only time I've seen achievements actually have a purpose was in Soul Calibur 4, when you unlocked additional items for the Character Creator tool for every five achievements you did. If most games did something like that, I wouldn't have a problem with them. As-is, yeah, they really serve no purpose 99% of the time.

Zevox

[Weezer]

Achievements can be a good way to suggest various self imposed challanges to people who otherwise wouldn't consider it but I don't like the way they are being used either

A good example of this is the garden gnome in HL2: Episode 2, it's a fun self-imposed challenge that no one would've thought of if Valve hadn't put in an achievment for it.

But on the other end of the spectrum are the 'achievments' for things you are required to do in game. Nothing is more irritating than an achievement pop-up everytime you beat a level.

[Morty]

I agree that achievments for stuff you actually need to put effort into aren't bad. Achievments for doing stuff you need to in order to progress through the game... not so much. Team Fortress 2 has fairly tolerable achievments, on the whole.

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, what was wrong with it, then? It was never problematic from what I remember in those games. Maybe you can say the sequences were a little pointless (all you really did was have to hold forward), but the different vantage wasn't difficult in any way.
I just answered that question. You just removed my ability to see things that are directly in front of me for no reason at all, in a game that's all about seeing what is directly in front of me.


A Quick Time Event is when something pops up during a cut scene and you have to react to it. By definition, something that occurs in the gameplay itself is not a quick time event.
Yeah, that sounds like an arbitrary definition that you made up on the spot with no actual backing, considering how Dragon's Lair is a posterboy for QTEs and you're telling me that there's no QTEs in that game by definition. They're called Quick Time Events because you have to act in a quick matter in a short period of time to an event on screen. Cutscenes may or may not be involved.

[MCerberus]

I agree that achievments for stuff you actually need to put effort into aren't bad. Achievments for doing stuff you need to in order to progress through the game... not so much. Team Fortress 2 has fairly tolerable achievments, on the whole.

TF2 achievements are directly tied to something other than 'the number of achievements you have.' You get a reward that you could have gotten eventually anyway, just faster and you can control which one to go for.


Plus, for a lot of them if you want to 'go' for it teach you how to play the game.

[Thufir]

I actually plan to write a blog post about game achievements at some point. Suffice to say here, I do feel they serve a definite purpose.


A good example of this is the garden gnome in HL2: Episode 2, it's a fun self-imposed challenge that no one would've thought of if Valve hadn't put in an achievement for it.

Do not underestimate the ingenuity of video gamers looking for a challenge. Someone would have done it.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone did do it and that's why Valve then added an achievement for it.

[warty goblin]

I wouldn't mind a better damage avoidance solution than dodge-rolling. At some point I start to feel less like badass warrior dude and more like some sort of demented armadillo. Let's make blocking a thing again, please?

[Zevox]

I actually plan to write a blog post about game achievements at some point. Suffice to say here, I do feel they serve a definite purpose.
I don't suppose you'd care to expand on that here, you know, for those of us who don't read whatever blog you're referring to?


I wouldn't mind a better damage avoidance solution than dodge-rolling. At some point I start to feel less like badass warrior dude and more like some sort of demented armadillo. Let's make blocking a thing again, please?
Eh, I prefer dodging personally. It's much more effective when facing groups of enemies, and can be used just as much to reposition yourself advantageously as to defend yourself, since it's often a very quick form of movement.

Zevox

[Brother Oni]

Yeah, that sounds like an arbitrary definition that you made up on the spot with no actual backing, considering how Dragon's Lair is a posterboy for QTEs and you're telling me that there's no QTEs in that game by definition. They're called Quick Time Events because you have to act in a quick matter in a short period of time to an event on screen. Cutscenes may or may not be involved.

I think the other distinguishing point about QTEs would be that the action is usually an arbitrary one that is disconnected from the main gameplay.

Depending on definition, Dragon's Lair could or could not be a pure QTE game, but I believe Shenmue is probably the first game that integrated them with cut scenes and the flow of normal gameplay.

[warty goblin]

Eh, I prefer dodging personally. It's much more effective when facing groups of enemies, and can be used just as much to reposition yourself advantageously as to defend yourself, since it's often a very quick form of movement.

Zevox
My objection is that it tends to look stupid, and ignores everything I've ever read about how to win armed combat. Really, except for dodging backwards in very limited circumstances, it's just not a thing you do. You've got weapons which can move far faster than your entire body and can be used to further your attack while defending. Dodging just sucks.

It's one of the things I really liked in Two Worlds II; the combat was based on blocking not dodging. It also considered weapon length, which made halberds rather godly.

[Weezer]

I'm with warty on this one, when looking at actual combat dodging is very limited and compared to blocking is hardly used at all. Blocking on the other hand is (rather obviously) used all the time. Also having your character rolling all over the place just plain looks absurd. Not sure when designers decided that rolling qualifies as "cool", I prefer my fighting free of acrobatics, thank-you-very-much.

That's one of my favorite parts of M&B Warband, it had an excellent blocking system.

[Giggling Ghast]

Having played the Kingdoms of Amalur demo this weekend, I found myself wishing that the idea of smashing wooden crates for rewards would go die in a fire. Looting crates is one thing; destroying them is another.

Not only should it cause massive wear and tear on my weapons, I can't help but think that someone should get pissed at me for causing this massive destruction of property to pilfer a few gold coins. I don't know how long it takes to make a wooden crate, but I can't help but think I'm destroying the life's work of some poor barrel-maker.

[warty goblin]

Having played the Kingdoms of Amalur demo this weekend, I found myself wishing that the idea of smashing wooden crates to gain rewards would go die in a fire.

I know, it's a hallmark of the fantasy genre, but I can't help but think that someone should get pissed at me for causing this massive destruction of property. I don't know how long it takes to make a wooden crate, but I can't help but think I'm destroying the life's work of some poor barrel-maker.

Also it's horribly, horribly boring. I have never once looked at an incidental crate in an RPG and gone "damn it sucks I can't smash and loot that!" Maybe I'm ignoring a vast silent majority of people who love sundering wooden boxes, but I can't say I've ever heard of somebody who adores the process.

Exploding barrels in FPSs might be just as tiresomely cliche, but at least then there's the potential for inventive mayhem.

[factotum]

Exploding barrels in FPSs might be just as tiresomely cliche, but at least then there's the potential for inventive mayhem.

...as anyone who's played the "Barrels O'Fun" level from Doom 2 will tell you. :smallwink:

[tyckspoon]

Also it's horribly, horribly boring. I have never once looked at an incidental crate in an RPG and gone "damn it sucks I can't smash and loot that!" Maybe I'm ignoring a vast silent majority of people who love sundering wooden boxes, but I can't say I've ever heard of somebody who adores the process.

Exploding barrels in FPSs might be just as tiresomely cliche, but at least then there's the potential for inventive mayhem.

I don't know if if I'd say I actively enjoy it (...well, ok, I do, finding random stuff punches the 'yay loot!' reward buttons) but I'm probably not alone in this- Zelda and other games where you can find useful stuff hidden in random objects have me well trained to check (especially RPGs, where you sometimes can find a significantly advanced weapon/armor/rare healing item for checking garbage cans..) So yeah, there likely is a reasonably large number of people who like being able to loot environmental objects.

As for smashing as opposed to just searching, I think it has to do with the game type.. I haven't played Amalur, but typically the search/examine animations in an action-focused game are much more cumbersome than the attack animations (assuming a specific search animation even exists), and if the items to be found in the crates are fairly basic pickups- money, health and mana powerups, that sort of thing- it doesn't make a lot of sense to repeatedly force the player to go through the searching and "you got X item!" notices when you can just have the container explode and drop twenty coins or whatever on the ground instead.

[Mewtarthio]

Plus it's easy to tell which crates you've already checked for loot, by virtue of them no longer existing.

[GolemsVoice]

I actually get a big delight out of smashing barrels, looting corpses, treasure chests and what-have-you in Diablo II. It's like a lottery you don't have to pay for, and it satisfies something basic in me. I wouldn't mind it not being there all that much, however.

[Giggling Ghast]

You don't have to search crates repeatedly in Dragon Age. Once you take the item out, you can't interact with them anymore. Simple as that.

Kingdoms of Amalur does sometimes hide treasure chests behind smashable crates, and naturally you can't access them without busting a few barrels.

I guess it's the fantasy equivalent of an extremely cheap security system. Can't afford a lock to guard your precious valuables? Stack a bunch of crates in front of your safebox!

[ScionoftheVoid]

I almost compulsively smash or loot any pot, barrel, crate, chest, wardrobe, cupboard, bag or unusual scenery I find, mostly ingrained by Zelda and Dragon Quest. Oh, and bookcases. Bookcases are always fun to examine. I wouldn't mind it being removed in most games, but a Dragon Quest game without things to loot/smash better have a damn good reason for it.

I don't really have any "all my hate" buttons that I can think of right now. But on the topic of chainmail bikinis and massively overmuscled males I'd prefer being able to viably choose something else. Unisex armour that becomes inexplicably skimpy on women or character customisation that puts the lower limit at "Adonis" is really annoying, but having the option there for those who like it or for when I'm messing around is fine with me. 'Course, this only really goes for things where customisation is allowed (even if it's as simple as changing your armour/clothing, for the first part). If it's a universal stylistic choice for the game I'll just avoid the game if I don't like it, same as I would anything else (I don't like FPSs or simulation games so I don't buy them, simple as that).

[Zevox]

My objection is that it tends to look stupid, and ignores everything I've ever read about how to win armed combat. Really, except for dodging backwards in very limited circumstances, it's just not a thing you do. You've got weapons which can move far faster than your entire body and can be used to further your attack while defending. Dodging just sucks.
I disagree that it looks stupid personally, but that's personal preference. The rest is easily explained by the simple fact that most video games - certainly any that I've seen that use dodge rolls - aren't trying to be realistic. Nor, personally, do I want them to. There's much more fun to be had with unrealistic and over-the-top abilities than with strictly realistic combat in my opinion.


I don't know if if I'd say I actively enjoy it (...well, ok, I do, finding random stuff punches the 'yay loot!' reward buttons) but I'm probably not alone in this- Zelda and other games where you can find useful stuff hidden in random objects have me well trained to check (especially RPGs, where you sometimes can find a significantly advanced weapon/armor/rare healing item for checking garbage cans..) So yeah, there likely is a reasonably large number of people who like being able to loot environmental objects.
Agreed. And I know that there are some who genuinely enjoy it - I recall seeing a video from Angry Joe once where he complained about a game that allowed him to smash boxes, but didn't put any loot in them, making the endeavor pointless.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

I disagree that it looks stupid personally, but that's personal preference. The rest is easily explained by the simple fact that most video games - certainly any that I've seen that use dodge rolls - aren't trying to be realistic. Nor, personally, do I want them to. There's much more fun to be had with unrealistic and over-the-top abilities than with strictly realistic combat in my opinion.


Zevox

I've simply never seen blatantly unrealistic videogame combat that's not infinitely clunkier than proper technique. If I'm playing a game to feel super badass, I should feel super badass, and instead if I bother to think about I realize any halfway competent enemy would have cut my head apart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc) during the first exchange.

So I don't think about it, but it's not as satisfying as it could be. Sort of like how being insanely powerful in comparison to your enemies can be fun, but it's not close to the knife-edge joy that is winning when both you and your enemy die in one or three hits. The second gets the visceral satisfaction of the first, well seasoned with the delightful tension of always being a hair's breadth from death.

[Lord Seth]

I just answered that question. You just removed my ability to see things that are directly in front of me for no reason at all, in a game that's all about seeing what is directly in front of me.Except, as I pointed out again, it didn't cause any gameplay problems because of the simplicity. The problem is more when you have to avoid obstacles and aren't given enough forewarning to be able to do it without either getting lucky or relying on trial and error, which was the issue in that portion of Super Mario 3D Land. That was not an issue in the Sonic Adventure games when they did it.


Yeah, that sounds like an arbitrary definition that you made up on the spot with no actual backing,Well, that's a wild accusation you just threw out, but I did have backing. Here's the excerpt from TV Tropes:
"[A Quick Time Event is] An event during a video game where you think you're watching a cinematic, but then a massive button pops up on screen, sometimes accompanied by a prompt like "Press X to dodge" or "Press B to avoid blades of death". Failure to do so results in damage or an alternate scene at best, or a Game Over at worst."

Emphasis mine.
considering how Dragon's Lair is a posterboy for QTEs and you're telling me that there's no QTEs in that game by definition.Now you're putting words into my mouth. Dragon's Lair essentially is one big cut scene...ergo, Quick Time Events.

Alternatively, you could take the viewpoint that Brother Oni suggested, that the nature of a Quick Time Event is them being unexpected in a cut scene, whereas that was the core gameplay in Dragon's Lair.

[MCerberus]

You know something weird? I'm sick of knowing what exactly the soundtrack is going to be like depending on genre.

RPG? Get ready for some violin-heavy orchestral!
A shooter huh? Guess it's going between death metal and a lot of brass.



It's gotten to the point where, in The Old Republic, it genuinely freaked me out that the soundtrack is so heavy on woodwinds. (Clarinet especially, they actually mix it with the oboe. Two very neglected instruments)

[Zevox]

I've simply never seen blatantly unrealistic videogame combat that's not infinitely clunkier than proper technique. If I'm playing a game to feel super badass, I should feel super badass, and instead if I bother to think about I realize any halfway competent enemy would have cut my head apart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc) during the first exchange.
Sounds more like that's a problem stemming from you knowing what "proper technique" would be, and thus that factoring into your reactions at all. I think you'll find that most people, both gamers and game-makers, don't, and most of both probably don't particularly care about that either.

Zevox

[OracleofWuffing]

Except, as I pointed out again, it didn't cause any gameplay problems because of the simplicity.
You do know that the presence or absence of such problems have nothing to do with the complaint of which I'm speaking, right?


Well, that's a wild accusation you just threw out, but I did have backing. Here's the excerpt from TV Tropes:
"[A Quick Time Event is] An event during a video game where you think you're watching a cinematic, but then a massive button pops up on screen, sometimes accompanied by a prompt like "Press X to dodge" or "Press B to avoid blades of death". Failure to do so results in damage or an alternate scene at best, or a Game Over at worst."

Emphasis mine.
Look at what you just emphasized there, because your source did not say it only happens during a cutscene, and the fact that they word it as "you think you're watching" implies that it actually does not.


Now you're putting words into my mouth. Dragon's Lair essentially is one big cut scene...ergo, Quick Time Events.
What you said earlier was "By definition, something that occurs in the gameplay itself is not a quick time event." Those things are most certainly happening in the gameplay of Dragon's Lair. You even admitted to this later in the post!


Alternatively, you could take the viewpoint that Brother Oni suggested, that the nature of a Quick Time Event is them being unexpected in a cut scene, whereas that was the core gameplay in Dragon's Lair.
Doing so would also contradict how you interpreted TV Tropes, which claims Dragon's Lair consisted entirely of them. Of note is also Sonic Unleashed's listing there, where a bunch of QTEs happen during gameplay. Oh hey, look, WarioWare's on there, too... I don't recall pressing any buttons during the cutscenes on that game.