As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Bitching Thread: Gaming Edition

1246734

Posts

  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    Dunxco wrote: »
    To be fair, there was Tomb Raider 3, which changed the outfits depending on what location you went to (combat fatigues in Nevada, catsuit for London, proper clothing for Antarctica). I really liked that feature, a nice extra touch to help immerse you in the locales.
    I think it may have even started with Tomb Raider 2; I seem to remember there was some diving level where you wore a wetsuit.

    Even Goldeneye did it right, and that was a mid-90s FPS where you never saw the player character for more than 30 seconds in cutscenes that bookended each level. That was, like, 15 years ago.

    ---

    The most annoying female character type, IMO, is one that I can't really remember being in the FF series but back when I played a lot of JRPGs in junior high they were all over the place: the violently unhinged teenage girl.

    This was the sort of character who followed the hero (usually a silent protagonist, at least back then), had constant mood swings, beat the living crap out of the hero in "comedic" scenes, usually instigated events that got the party in trouble, forced herself into the party regardless of in-game effectiveness, complained constantly, got captured constantly, reacted poorly anytime the hero got attention from any other woman, and basically just acted like a huge nuisance. This was all apparently supposed to be endearing because half the time she was the protagonist's love interest.

    IIRC the girls in the Lunar series were pretty bad for this, and some of the women in the SNES Lufia games had shades of it, but the absolute worst example was undoubtedly Nanami from Suikoden II, probably the most annoying character in any video game I've yet to play (except, of course, Tingle).

    This kind of character is annoying enough on their own, but when you realize that it's actually a stock character and they all act more or less the same it's even worse. I don't really play JRPGs anymore so I don't know if they still have a lot of these, though.

    I really don't know too many of this type. The closest I can think of is Kid from Chrono Cross (who literally throws herself into the party no matter how many times you say no).

    Beyond that, I don't think there's enough of this type to make it a cliche.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • AdusAdus Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I'd say it's more of an anime cliche that just happens to show up in games sometimes.

    "beat the living crap out of the hero in "comedic" scenes" is the most annoying trait of those characters though. Doesn't matter how weak they are or that the main character logically shouldn't take shit like that from anyone, they'll still get away with it.

    Adus on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It indeed happens a ridiculous amount in Anime (particularly Naruto), but thankfully I don't see it happening too much in RPGs.

    Watching Tifa knock Cloud out with a single smack in the Gold Saucer did make me want a couple more moments like that, though. Funny enough, the novels go on to indicate Cloud's utter fear of pissing her off. :lol:

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • DunxcoDunxco Should get a suit Never skips breakfastRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel you are absolutely right. If we're going that far back it was a nice touch that they made Lara run around her mansion in Tomb Raider 1 in work-out gear, because it was a training level with an awesome gymnasium. Shit like that I enjoy because it shows a level of basic understanding on the developer's behalf. It'd make no sense to run around that place in her normal attire (which I think they got lazy and did in 2 or 3?). I don't go stomping around my home in rock-climbing gear, who would Lara strap on her adventuring equipment just for a mosey around her maison?

    It irritates me greatly when this is just conveniently overlooked because designers couldn't be arsed to cook up another skin/mesh, like you said.

    I'm also not a fan of minigames with no real benefit to the outcome other than "well done, have something to show you did it". FFIX, as much as I love it, was a great perpetrator of this with its skipping minigame early on. In my teenage years when rage ran high, I actually broke a mirror in frustration trying to clear that one time. Nowadays I know much better. Pokémon is even worse with this and it's one of the two overreaching goals of the game: Catch them all. I've caught them all once, on the original Blue. That was it. I got a shitty certificate and a pat on the back. Fool me once...

    Dunxco on
  • deowolfdeowolf is allowed to do that. Traffic.Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I got another one, and frankly it's one that consistently irritates me.

    Gender tropes.

    It seems to me that every time I look at chicks in video games, they're always these lean athletic women who (in the case of RPG's) tend to be either fragile glass agility fighters or fucking casters.

    Fuck that noise. I want more body types. Gimme a 7 foot amazon. Gimme a pudgy chick. Gimme ANYTHING but these feamle characters who are most easily differentiated by there cup size.

    Well, there was Hammer in Fable 2, and . . . uh, hm.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Fig-DFig-D Tustin, CA, USRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The apparent death of same screen/split screen co-op in retail games. Downloadable titles seem to be a bit better about this, but I'm getting really tired of games that have online co-op, but no local co-op. There are very few good games that my buddies and I can play when we are all hanging out at somebody's apartment.

    Fig-D on
    SteamID - Fig-D :: PSN - Fig-D
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Platforming sections that require precise movement but don't have precise platforming controls. I'm playing through God of War right now and this is driving me crazy. Which also brings me to point two: fixed cameras with shitty angles. Especially when combined with platforming.

    Tomanta on
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Not sure if it's been said yet, but story deaths in games with resurrection mechanics.

    Like, I'm doing a quest in Guild Wars, and I'm looking for someone. I find them, body sprawled over the ashy soil, and he's dead. I have to go back and tell them he's dead. But, wait, I'm standing here, with this thing called a resurrection signet that will bring someone back to life. I've used it a dozen times already. This guy doesn't have to be dead and his wife doesn't have to be unhappy.

    Or I'm collecting family crests of fallen soldiers for their families. I'm going to the dead bodies to get them. i'm sure the monk with me could spare a bit of his regenerating mana to resurrect these poor soldiers so they can go back to their families?

    -Loki- on
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This has probably already been said, but starcraft 2 has been a massive let down for me; and that's even after adjusting for hype.

    I'm considering buying it, as I loved the first one...but with all the sites going apeshit over it the way a tween does for Twilight, I'm wondering if I should bother ponying up the $60 minimum for it. What say you?

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    chasm wrote: »
    This has probably already been said, but starcraft 2 has been a massive let down for me; and that's even after adjusting for hype.

    I'm considering buying it, as I loved the first one...but with all the sites going apeshit over it the way a tween does for Twilight, I'm wondering if I should bother ponying up the $60 minimum for it. What say you?

    There were people who were disappointed with Starcraft 1, and with Brood War. If you've played the beta you should have an idea of what's going on, and there are thousands of hours of video of the game all over youtube and every other video site.

    If you're talking about the single player game, it's better than every other Blizzard RTS single player. The story is still meh, but it's way better than what you'll get in any other game of the genre, and many other genres as well, and the production values are top notch.

    Page- on
    Competitive Gaming and Writing Blog Updated in October: "Song (and Story) of the Day"
    Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
    stream
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    chasm wrote: »
    This has probably already been said, but starcraft 2 has been a massive let down for me; and that's even after adjusting for hype.

    I'm considering buying it, as I loved the first one...but with all the sites going apeshit over it the way a tween does for Twilight, I'm wondering if I should bother ponying up the $60 minimum for it. What say you?

    I'm someone who simply does not like Blizzard games. Particularly their RTS's. Warcraft was pretty bland and Starcraft was just the same, in space. I'm more of a Relic RTS gamer, I like smaller scale, more in depth tactics.

    I bought Starcraft 2 on the information I had on the campaign, how every mission is different, varied objectives and stuff. I'm totally loving the campaign. The story telling is a definite step up for Blizzard, and the amount of care that's gone into the campaign rivals Relics games. I'd definitely recommend it on the campaign alone.

    -Loki- on
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Well, Myth is still my favorite RTS/RTT of all time, but SC1 is pretty high up there. If I do get SC2, it'll be for just the campaign.

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    chasm wrote: »
    Well, Myth is still my favorite RTS/RTT of all time, but SC1 is pretty high up there. If I do get SC2, it'll be for just the campaign.

    You won't be disappointed. They've definitely stepped up their game. It doesn't feel like a bunch of skirmishes linked by unrelated cutscenes anymore.

    -Loki- on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Adus wrote: »
    I'd say it's more of an anime cliche that just happens to show up in games sometimes.

    "beat the living crap out of the hero in "comedic" scenes" is the most annoying trait of those characters though. Doesn't matter how weak they are or that the main character logically shouldn't take shit like that from anyone, they'll still get away with it.
    I've never really watched any anime (except Princess Mononoke I guess) but this is probably accurate - Lufia, Suikoden and Lunar all seem to be pretty anime-influenced, at least in their art style.

    Here's a rather non-specific one, but I really, really hate it - unexpected and unwanted genre changes. One of the worst examples is the stupid, broken, scream-inducing platforming level (Tower of Babel) in Xenogears. Not only was it annoying to suddenly have a bunch of jumping challenges in a text-heavy RPG, but the engine was clearly not designed for it - you could get into random battles in midair, causing you to plummet all the way back down to the beginning because the game had to load the battle screen. The camera wasn't designed with that kind of action in mind, either - you could never get the right angle for your jumps - and the fact that the robots you were steering were constantly shown to be capable of flight in cutscenes added the final irritating touch.

    There's really no reason to throw a switch puzzle in an FPS, or platforming in an RPG, or whatever. They don't really add anything to the game other than providing an obstacle to get through so you can get back to doing whatever it was you actually bought the game for, and usually just feel tacked-on and lame.

    EDIT: To be fair, there are some games that pull these off, and when such diversions are done well they can add a lot to a game. The Zelda series, for example, has a lot of genre-blending - action, puzzles, some platforming, even some racing. Most games aren't Zelda, though, and for many developers this sort of switch is more likely to be a miss than a hit.

    Duffel on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Duffel wrote: »
    Dunxco wrote: »
    To be fair, there was Tomb Raider 3, which changed the outfits depending on what location you went to (combat fatigues in Nevada, catsuit for London, proper clothing for Antarctica). I really liked that feature, a nice extra touch to help immerse you in the locales.
    I think it may have even started with Tomb Raider 2; I seem to remember there was some diving level where you wore a wetsuit.

    Even Goldeneye did it right, and that was a mid-90s FPS where you never saw the player character for more than 30 seconds in cutscenes that bookended each level. That was, like, 15 years ago.

    I too like it when this is utilized properly, and dislike it when it's ignored (tough there are certain exceptions--the Master Chief using the same armor through a whole Halo game makes sense, because it's a self-contained atmosphere and military equipment).

    The Tomb Raider games handle this well, typically. In TR3, each different zone has different attire that works for it. Tomb Raider Underworld takes this even further, giving you multiple options in each environment. Uncharted 2 also does this, if I remember correctly.

    Something else that I find annoying--Russians, which almost always means Russians invading the United States. As with Nazis and Nazi zombies at the height of the World War II game craze, it's a case of "It was entertaining, now it's boring." Ignoring the whole issue of "no basis in reality" it carries with it the same overused baggage of bad, unconvincing Russian accents, various stupid, uncreative stereotypes, lazy writing, the same generic enemy soldiers over and over, evil mustache twirling, etc. I know developers love making Russians bad guys, but there's no shortage of national identities who dislike us for any number of reasons. The Chinese, the Iranians, most of South America, much of the Middle East, etc. Move on to the next generic badguy already!

    Some games do it well. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 comes to mind. But in Modern Warfare 2 and the like it's kind of overused to death. But that's just my feeling on it.

    That, and helicopters being the generic "paper cannon" enemy. Uncharted 2 did it right, with a helicopter being a pain in the ass to destroy, and rightly so.

    Synthesis on
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The Tomb Raider games handle this well, typically. In TR3, each different zone has different attire that works for it. Tomb Raider Underworld takes this even further, giving you multiple options in each environment. Uncharted 2 also does this, if I remember correctly.

    I've actually started appreciating this in these types of games. Uncharted 2 definitely does do it, as well as Uncharted 1 (once - you're in a wetsuit at the start, though after that it's 1 long game through 1 environment so it's not really needed). Another game that does it, which surprised me, was The Force Unleashed. Every mission gives you a different outfit. Some make sense (putting on extra clothes for protection on a world with a harsh environment) and some don't (going all tribal on Felucia just... cause).

    -Loki- on
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    How many game really have the russians invading plot? You mentioned MW2 and BC2, but what else? WiC? That homefront game announced at e3?

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    The Tomb Raider games handle this well, typically. In TR3, each different zone has different attire that works for it. Tomb Raider Underworld takes this even further, giving you multiple options in each environment. Uncharted 2 also does this, if I remember correctly.

    I've actually started appreciating this in these types of games. Uncharted 2 definitely does do it, as well as Uncharted 1 (once - you're in a wetsuit at the start, though after that it's 1 long game through 1 environment so it's not really needed). Another game that does it, which surprised me, was The Force Unleashed. Every mission gives you a different outfit. Some make sense (putting on extra clothes for protection on a world with a harsh environment) and some don't (going all tribal on Felucia just... cause).

    Yeah, I wasn't expecting it in TFU, and it's a nice touch.

    Not every game calls for it (again, see the Halo example, or something like Arma 2 which takes place in a single theater of combat).

    Another game that did this well, shockingly enough, was Oni--besides the TCTF combat gear, Konoko basically changed her outfit for each level (though they were mostly retreads of tight jeans, tank tops, and leather jackets). They gave her a sweater for the cold level too.

    And then you have games like Half-Life 2, which I guess it's excusable. You don't even have a fucking reflection in that game either.
    Spoit wrote: »
    How many game really have the russians invading plot? You mentioned MW2 and BC2, but what else? WiC? That homefront game announced at e3?

    Some games I actually enjoyed, which is one of the reasons I'm tired of it now. MW2, BC2, Freedom Fighters, Red Alert 2, Red Alert 3 (the expansions, naturally), EndWar, Arma 2, a few other titles. I was more addressing my boredom with the current trend of the Russians as the bad guy of the day (though it's actually on the decline--not sure who they're picking up next), since it felt like facing the same enemies over and over and over.

    It'd be like if every military-themed video game decided to use religious space aliens as the enemy (except you'd probably still get more variation than "various persons from commiespace"). I'd much rather have games like Half-Life 2 mix it up.

    Haven't heard about that Homefront game. Sounds like Freedom Fighters again, I guess. Fun.

    Synthesis on
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Freedom Fighters...?

    chasm on
    steam_sig.png
    XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • RakaiRakai Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    That, and helicopters being the generic "paper cannon" enemy. Uncharted 2 did it right, with a helicopter being a pain in the ass to destroy, and rightly so.

    The helicopter parts in Uncharted 2 were by far the most idiotic parts of that game. Apparently they were shooting nerf bullets and were piloted by Mr. Magoo. They didn't do them right at all, which leads into another annoyance. How the hell does a helicopter unloading thousands of rounds capable of punching holes in tanks, not hit a target on foot...once. Here's an idea, let's blow up our own train by shooting missiles nowhere near the target. Why? Because we haven't hit our explosion budget yet! There's the cliche'd stormtrooper aim, and then there's there's missing the side of a barn with a nuclear bomb. A random soldier with a shotgun was more terrifying than the helicopters. That's just plain stupid.

    Rakai on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Rakai wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    That, and helicopters being the generic "paper cannon" enemy. Uncharted 2 did it right, with a helicopter being a pain in the ass to destroy, and rightly so.

    The helicopter parts in Uncharted 2 were by far the most idiotic parts of that game. Apparently they were shooting nerf bullets and were piloted by Mr. Magoo. They didn't do them right at all, which leads into another annoyance. How the hell does a helicopter unloading thousands of rounds capable of punching holes in tanks, not hit a target on foot...once. Here's an idea, let's blow up our own train by shooting missiles nowhere near the target. Why? Because we haven't hit our explosion budget yet! There's the cliche'd stormtrooper aim, and then there's there's missing the side of a barn with a nuclear bomb. A random soldier with a shotgun was more terrifying than the helicopters. That's just plain stupid.

    Actually, I'd agree with it being a stupid part of the game. For the following reasons:

    1) The helicopter chasing the train shtick feels horribly overused. I'm fairly certain I've done the same thing in several games as soon as I stepped aboard a train as well.

    2) The anti-tank helicopter is shooting rockets and armor-piercing shells at the train it's supposed to be protecting. It's inherently stupid.

    The issue of it can't aim worth a shit doesn't really stand out, because apparently neither can the huge waves of Russian mercenaries you fight either (pretty abysmal AI overall). I actually meant the section where you fight the helicopter on the rooftops, but I agree with you on the train section. That being said, I didn't like Uncharted 2 as much as most people did (ended up selling it for $40 and cutting my losses). The point remains though that super-fragile helicopters kind of defeats the point of fighting them. Instead of sending 10 helicopters after me made apparently of canvas and paper mache, how about just one that's actually an armored helicopter?

    Synthesis on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Algertman wrote: »
    Final Fantasy: IX was the last main one that didn't suck. Though VIII was a pile of trash.

    Let's form babbies together

    Stun lock + instant kill scenarios for me. It's one thing to totally cock myself up and die a fair death, but to somehow take control away from me for several seconds and then make me sit there and watch myself die in HD glory while there's nothing I can do is just a fucking dick move. I'm noticing this happening a lot in Mario Galaxy 2. Something will happen, control is taken away, Mario will start skidding around while I'm frantically trying to regain control and come riiiiiiight to the edge of a ledge, then a slight gust of wind will knock me off. It's god damn infuriating and there's no fucking excuse for it, especially in a platformer where control is the only thing you have.

    joshofalltrades on
  • RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    deowolf wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I got another one, and frankly it's one that consistently irritates me.

    Gender tropes.

    It seems to me that every time I look at chicks in video games, they're always these lean athletic women who (in the case of RPG's) tend to be either fragile glass agility fighters or fucking casters.

    Fuck that noise. I want more body types. Gimme a 7 foot amazon. Gimme a pudgy chick. Gimme ANYTHING but these feamle characters who are most easily differentiated by there cup size.

    Well, there was Hammer in Fable 2, and . . . uh, hm.

    I agree to this and just thought up a slasher flick where the killer was a hyper intelligent barbie and the heroine an intelligent pudgy chick (Raven Simone). But as an addendum, army games specifically and many others (Borderlands, Killzone, gears of war, max payne, GTA IV) that lack females as enemies or player charaters.

    I know a kotaku podcast gave a reason and I can accept that but still, I like the idea of a XX refunding a ticket on Isle of Innocents and mowing down the assault and engineer who had their backs turned.


    Another thing I would like to bitch about, Games that have a better version lurking just around the modders corner but instead they keep their code "locked" or what ever the term is, I'M LOOKING AT YOU FARCRY 2, aka Legend of Zelda with guns and no minigames. It would have kicked ass with only a handful of mods! Fallout 3, don't think you and your animations are getting away!

    edit: Homefront is Red Dawn with North Koreans.

    RoyceSraphim on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Algertman wrote: »
    Final Fantasy: IX was the last main one that didn't suck. Though VIII was a pile of trash.

    Let's form babbies together

    Stun lock + instant kill scenarios for me. It's one thing to totally cock myself up and die a fair death, but to somehow take control away from me for several seconds and then make me sit there and watch myself die in HD glory while there's nothing I can do is just a fucking dick move. I'm noticing this happening a lot in Mario Galaxy 2. Something will happen, control is taken away, Mario will start skidding around while I'm frantically trying to regain control and come riiiiiiight to the edge of a ledge, then a slight gust of wind will knock me off. It's god damn infuriating and there's no fucking excuse for it, especially in a platformer where control is the only thing you have.

    At least it's not in HD?

    Synthesis on
  • Alien QueenAlien Queen Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Sorry if this was already mentioned but....

    How about that final (final final) boss in the original Drakengard?
    The entire game is a hack-n-slash up until that point, and then BAM you have some weird rhythm game that's hard as shit. And dont get me started on the final cut scene:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIYqEcS5asM

    Alien Queen on
    3DS: 4742 5205 9601 - Boss Lady - Pokemon Y - In game name: Kira
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Games that are too easy annoy me a lot. Especially rpgs. Your story isn't that interesting, I'm here for the gameplay.

    I just feel let down when there's never a reason to try.

    There have been some sad sack action games in that department as well. I remember when Rogue Trooper came out I played through the entire game on hard just using the default pistol and the main gun only as a turret. It was so obvious when enemies were going to attack that all I had to do was set up the turret, trigger the attack, and then wait for everyone to die while I picked off stragglers. I beat the last boss with the pistol. It was pathetic, and killed any enjoyment I'd been getting out of it.

    Another example would be the Atelier Iris games. The art is great, so I want to play them, but the gameplay is just so pointless. The whole thing is based around creating new items and gear, but the monsters are so easy that there's never any real need to do it. It's not like the story is so good I just want to get to the next cut scene, and the game is padded out with dungeons that go nowhere. Without challenging battles there's just no reason to play.

    Page- on
    Competitive Gaming and Writing Blog Updated in October: "Song (and Story) of the Day"
    Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
    stream
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Algertman wrote: »
    Final Fantasy: IX was the last main one that didn't suck. Though VIII was a pile of trash.

    Let's form babbies together

    Stun lock + instant kill scenarios for me. It's one thing to totally cock myself up and die a fair death, but to somehow take control away from me for several seconds and then make me sit there and watch myself die in HD glory while there's nothing I can do is just a fucking dick move. I'm noticing this happening a lot in Mario Galaxy 2. Something will happen, control is taken away, Mario will start skidding around while I'm frantically trying to regain control and come riiiiiiight to the edge of a ledge, then a slight gust of wind will knock me off. It's god damn infuriating and there's no fucking excuse for it, especially in a platformer where control is the only thing you have.

    At least it's not in HD?

    Man I don't even care.

    It's like playing an RTS and then suddenly all your units are obliterated and you are unable to make new ones for a bit. Then you sit and watch as the enemy steamrolls into your base.

    Or an RPG, and suddenly in the middle of a boss fight you bonk your head on a dangling lamp and you revert to level 1 for 20 seconds while the level 99 boss goes to town on your ass.

    Or a FPS, and all your guns jam up right when a horde of enemies is unleashed and surrounds you.

    None of those things would be acceptable, ever. Why is it still acceptable in this day and age to stunlock you in the middle of a delicate platforming section where instant death is a possibility? It doesn't make any fucking sense. Hamper my abilities, sure. Restrict my control, fine. Removing all control from me so that I die from something I wasn't even close to when I got stunned? Ridiculous.

    joshofalltrades on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010

    Or an RPG, and suddenly in the middle of a boss fight you bonk your head on a dangling lamp and you revert to level 1 for 20 seconds while the level 99 boss goes to town on your ass.
    So sleep status effects and similar status effects?

    Couscous on
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    None of those things would be acceptable, ever. Why is it still acceptable in this day and age to stunlock you in the middle of a delicate platforming section where instant death is a possibility? It doesn't make any fucking sense. Hamper my abilities, sure. Restrict my control, fine. Removing all control from me so that I die from something I wasn't even close to when I got stunned? Ridiculous.

    Nintendohard, that's why.

    -Loki- on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    Or an RPG, and suddenly in the middle of a boss fight you bonk your head on a dangling lamp and you revert to level 1 for 20 seconds while the level 99 boss goes to town on your ass.
    So sleep status effects and similar status effects?

    The only RPG I can think of where you play as one character (an important qualifier, since if you have multiple characters their death is not necessarily a game over scenario) and a sleep effect could potentially equal a 1-hit kill is Demon's Souls, and what do you know there's stunlock/instant death in that game too.

    If you're talking about Final Fantasy and the like, usually a sleeping character will get clubbed on the head for a little damage and they'll wake up. Or one of your other characters will give them a remedy.

    joshofalltrades on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    -Loki- wrote: »
    None of those things would be acceptable, ever. Why is it still acceptable in this day and age to stunlock you in the middle of a delicate platforming section where instant death is a possibility? It doesn't make any fucking sense. Hamper my abilities, sure. Restrict my control, fine. Removing all control from me so that I die from something I wasn't even close to when I got stunned? Ridiculous.

    Nintendohard, that's why.

    Speaking of which, any game where getting hit will knock you backwards from whatever direction you currently face even if it breaks the laws of physics (fucking NINJA GAIDEN and OLD CASTLEVANIAS) making pits the deadliest enemies in the game can eat whatever their least preferred genitalia are.

    EDIT: I probably shouldn't contribute to this thread a whole lot more or you guys are going to start thinking that bitching at games is all I do

    joshofalltrades on
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    -Loki- wrote: »
    None of those things would be acceptable, ever. Why is it still acceptable in this day and age to stunlock you in the middle of a delicate platforming section where instant death is a possibility? It doesn't make any fucking sense. Hamper my abilities, sure. Restrict my control, fine. Removing all control from me so that I die from something I wasn't even close to when I got stunned? Ridiculous.

    Nintendohard, that's why.

    Speaking of which, any game where getting hit will knock you backwards from whatever direction you currently face even if it breaks the laws of physics (fucking NINJA GAIDEN and OLD CASTLEVANIAS) making pits the deadliest enemies in the game can eat whatever their least preferred genitalia are.

    Oh, definitely. I mainly see that as lazy programming though. They program it to knock you the opposite direction you are facing, without taking into account which direction you were hit from.

    -Loki- on
  • DuffelDuffel jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Here's another one: blatant and unapologetic guide-whoring.

    Anything where you've got items, collectibles, etc. you can miss and never find again, especially when they're hidden or otherwise concealed in ways that no player would ever actually think to do on even repeated playthroughs. Some games, especially RPGs, last upwards of fifty hours and there is no way I'm going through a second playthrough just to get some kind of trinket or see a hidden cutscene.

    This one is even more mystifying these days, because honestly how many people buy strategy guides anymore? Give it two weeks and everything you could ever want to know is going to be on Gamefaqs for free.

    If game companies are that wedded to the idea of trying to sell a book with a game, how about this: every guide-worthy release instead gets a developer's journal with cool stuff like concept art and notes from the designers and developer's diaries and other cool information a big fan might actually want to read or look at. Stuff they wanted to put in the game but couldn't, stuff that used to be in the game but got cut, what inspired them to make the game the way they did, everything like that. I might actually consider buying one of those for a few games I really really like, whereas I haven't bought an actual strategy guide for any game I can remember since sometime in the 90s.

    Duffel on
  • Page-Page- Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    -Loki- wrote: »
    None of those things would be acceptable, ever. Why is it still acceptable in this day and age to stunlock you in the middle of a delicate platforming section where instant death is a possibility? It doesn't make any fucking sense. Hamper my abilities, sure. Restrict my control, fine. Removing all control from me so that I die from something I wasn't even close to when I got stunned? Ridiculous.

    Nintendohard, that's why.

    Speaking of which, any game where getting hit will knock you backwards from whatever direction you currently face even if it breaks the laws of physics (fucking NINJA GAIDEN and OLD CASTLEVANIAS) making pits the deadliest enemies in the game can eat whatever their least preferred genitalia are.

    EDIT: I probably shouldn't contribute to this thread a whole lot more or you guys are going to start thinking that bitching at games is all I do

    Good old Diablo 2 knockback bug. The death of many a fine character. Especially nasty from Death Lords and Minions of Destruction. Good times.

    You'd also want to stay away from dota and the like. Chain stuns are the way to go. It can be a pain, but it's fun to do.

    Page- on
    Competitive Gaming and Writing Blog Updated in October: "Song (and Story) of the Day"
    Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
    stream
  • JaysonFourJaysonFour Classy Monster Kitteh Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    One of my biggest pet peeves: guides that try waaaaaaay too hard to coax you to a website.

    Fuck FFIX in that regard. You dropped a twenty on the guide and then all you get are the overworld maps and a great big note that says "If you want to read anything actually fucking USEFUL, like boss strategies, contents of treasure chests, and hidden items, go to hahastupidgamerwegotyourmonies.com and enter this stupid goddamn code."

    You pay the twenty bucks to get the magic words so you can go through PlayOnline and get bombarded with ads so Squenix can make even more monies off of you. All for information that can be found on GameFaqs or IGN for free- or you can simply keep at it until you beat it, like we used to do in the old days.

    You youngsters don't know how good you have it. Back in my day, we got fifteen blocks of memory on our cards... *falls asleep*

    JaysonFour on
    steam_sig.png
    I can has cheezburger, yes?
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    deowolf wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I got another one, and frankly it's one that consistently irritates me.

    Gender tropes.

    It seems to me that every time I look at chicks in video games, they're always these lean athletic women who (in the case of RPG's) tend to be either fragile glass agility fighters or fucking casters.

    Fuck that noise. I want more body types. Gimme a 7 foot amazon. Gimme a pudgy chick. Gimme ANYTHING but these feamle characters who are most easily differentiated by there cup size.

    Well, there was Hammer in Fable 2, and . . . uh, hm.

    Fable 2 doesn't count because Molyneux is an idiot.



    Anyway, all characters tend to have the same shapes and sizes because it saves on development time and processing requirements.




    And my biggest gripe with games are the menus. Besides the game itself, this is the most encountered area of a game. Make that shit as effortless as possible to navigate because I don't want to have to spend more time looking at it than I have to.

    This means no menus that 'restart' at some beginning point because I backed up to correct a mistake. I didn't like scrolling through all that garbage in the first place. It's probably what made be fuck up the first time.

    Also, don't pop a menu on screen immediately if I have to wait a second to actually input something. Either make the response near instantaneous or draw the menu a little slower so that when it fully appears I can make my selection. I find I have more patience for waiting for access than having to constantly remind myself that it's not available yet.


    Oh, and Japan? I get that in your culture the X on the DualShock means 'no' and Circle means 'yes'. Or whatever cultural baggage you've assigned to it. But in the rest of the world, we've come to associate the bottom button on the gamepad as a catch-all 'accept' and the right most button as 'back'. I'm not asking you to comply with the rest of the world, only to make that change when you port the motherfucker.

    And SONY? Fuck you for not making it a requirement in localisation! It's bad enough to play that rare game that doesn't allow you to customise the camera axis controlls, but it's worse when it defaults to whatever the game player doesn't like. Being force to adjust for 'odd duck' games is a pain in my ass.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »

    Or an RPG, and suddenly in the middle of a boss fight you bonk your head on a dangling lamp and you revert to level 1 for 20 seconds while the level 99 boss goes to town on your ass.
    So sleep status effects and similar status effects?

    The only RPG I can think of where you play as one character (an important qualifier, since if you have multiple characters their death is not necessarily a game over scenario) and a sleep effect could potentially equal a 1-hit kill is Demon's Souls, and what do you know there's stunlock/instant death in that game too.

    If you're talking about Final Fantasy and the like, usually a sleeping character will get clubbed on the head for a little damage and they'll wake up. Or one of your other characters will give them a remedy.

    There is the Persona series. In FFXIII, If Lightning dies, you are screwed.

    In Super Mario galaxy, the point is to have some consequences for getting hit. Health might as well not exist unless you really suck. Lives are so common and checkpoints are frequent enough that it isn't much of a problem.

    Couscous on
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    On the topic of menus, the default option on the main menu should be to resume my last game. The very LAST thing it should default to is 'new game', unless there isn't anything resembling a save game feature in the first place.

    On the same topic, let me create multiple "profiles" / saved games under a single account. This is a big problem on many 360 games. Sometimes I want to start over WITHOUT destroying my previous game.

    Tomanta on
  • -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    On the topic of menus, the default option on the main menu should be to resume my last game. The very LAST thing it should default to is 'new game', unless there isn't anything resembling a save game feature in the first place.

    I haven't seen a game do that in quite a while, actually. But I could have just not played a game that does it in a while, too.

    -Loki- on
  • elliotw2elliotw2 Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    deowolf wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I got another one, and frankly it's one that consistently irritates me.

    Gender tropes.

    It seems to me that every time I look at chicks in video games, they're always these lean athletic women who (in the case of RPG's) tend to be either fragile glass agility fighters or fucking casters.

    Fuck that noise. I want more body types. Gimme a 7 foot amazon. Gimme a pudgy chick. Gimme ANYTHING but these feamle characters who are most easily differentiated by there cup size.

    Well, there was Hammer in Fable 2, and . . . uh, hm.

    Fable 2 doesn't count because Molyneux is an idiot.



    Anyway, all characters tend to have the same shapes and sizes because it saves on development time and processing requirements.




    And my biggest gripe with games are the menus. Besides the game itself, this is the most encountered area of a game. Make that shit as effortless as possible to navigate because I don't want to have to spend more time looking at it than I have to.

    This means no menus that 'restart' at some beginning point because I backed up to correct a mistake. I didn't like scrolling through all that garbage in the first place. It's probably what made be fuck up the first time.

    Also, don't pop a menu on screen immediately if I have to wait a second to actually input something. Either make the response near instantaneous or draw the menu a little slower so that when it fully appears I can make my selection. I find I have more patience for waiting for access than having to constantly remind myself that it's not available yet.


    Oh, and Japan? I get that in your culture the X on the DualShock means 'no' and Circle means 'yes'. Or whatever cultural baggage you've assigned to it. But in the rest of the world, we've come to associate the bottom button on the gamepad as a catch-all 'accept' and the right most button as 'back'. I'm not asking you to comply with the rest of the world, only to make that change when you port the motherfucker.

    And SONY? Fuck you for not making it a requirement in localisation! It's bad enough to play that rare game that doesn't allow you to customise the camera axis controlls, but it's worse when it defaults to whatever the game player doesn't like. Being force to adjust for 'odd duck' games is a pain in my ass.

    Well, on that, shout at Nintendo too, since their Classic Controller (and SNES) require you to use the A button for going forward in menus. The O is forward, X is back makes sense though, even if it's odd to use it that way now. I really don't know why Sony changed it on the PSX way back when.

    elliotw2 on
    camo_sig2.pngXBL:Elliotw3|PSN:elliotw2
Sign In or Register to comment.