Game design choices that completely ruin the game?

[NeonSpaceBeagle]

Tutorial mandates that you must progress through in order to even start the game.  ALWAYS a giant NOPE from me.    I paid for the game, let me start at the beginning.  I don't care if I suck.   

 

Also locked tracks in racing games.  The bane of my existence!
 

 

 

[+Gemintronic]

Since rumor has it Chrono Cross is getting a modern console remake I might as well grump a bit.

 

The battle system in Chrono Cross seems to punish grinding by not gaining much (if at all) for repeated battles.  I heard something about fighting bosses and rotating characters but, meh.

[Razzie.P]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:56 AM, NeonSpaceBeagle said:

Also locked tracks in racing games.  The bane of my existence!
 

 

 

I agree.  I’d even go so far as to say that all locked “gameplay content” can go f itself.   Cosmetics, bells n’ whistles, that sort of thing, fine… lock the hell out of it.  But tracks, cars, fighting rosters, multiplayer levels, etc, should never be locked, in my opinion.

We may be in the minority, though.  I made a similar plea to stop locking gameplay content over in the late Amico forum, and virtually everyone who replied seemed to disagree, stating they “like the reward,” and “it gives players a reason to play the campaign.”   

My thoughts were the campaign should be fun enough to want to play “as is,” without forcing it to “earn” the rest of the game for non-campaign play.

 

 

I’ve seen locked tracks and rosters RUIN quite a few intended multiplayer parties.  

F-Zero on Gamecube:  amazing game + amazing car roster = amazing disappointment when we ripped it open to only have something like 4 cars and a couple of tracks unlocked.

Many wrestling games and Mortal Kombats --- I’ve seen my friends buy these at launch, and work shifts grinding through on the easiest setting possible just to have a full variety of options before everyone gets together to play.  By the time the gang’s all here, they were sick of it and really didn’t enjoy any of it.
 

Rant off. ?

 

[BawesomeBurf]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:20 AM, Gemintronic said:

Since rumor has it Chrono Cross is getting a modern console remake I might as well grump a bit.

 

The battle system in Chrono Cross seems to punish grinding by not gaining much (if at all) for repeated battles.  I heard something about fighting bosses and rotating characters but, meh.

Yeah, you only gain stats for like 5 or so battles per star level. Rotating characters only helps if you plan on using a whole bunch of different ones. If you're planning on sticking to one party, I wouldn't bother swapping.

[CapitanClassic]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:52 PM, Razzie.P said:

I agree.  I’d even go so far as to say that all locked “gameplay content” can go f itself.   Cosmetics, bells n’ whistles, that sort of thing, fine… lock the hell out of it.  But tracks, cars, fighting rosters, multiplayer levels, etc, should never be locked, in my opinion.

 

I’ve seen locked tracks and rosters RUIN quite a few intended multiplayer parties.  

I understand completely that content shouldn't be locked for games, since you paid for them. I understand the disappointment when playing a friends copy of a game (Super Mario Kart- with only 50cc) or forgetting to bring a memory card and half the fighting roster (Tekken 2) is locked and unavailable. 

 

I am fine with rosters, levels, being locked, as long as the developer left in a game code to unlock everything.  I remember playing Steel Battalion,  and being stuck on the 4th level (of 20), and not knowing about the level select code until the second time I borrowed the game. It was nice being able to experience the remaining 3/4 of the game after being stuck so soon. I would have hated Driver / Gran Turismo if I was unable to pass the driving tests.

 

Game developers should leave in the level skip and other codes even after the QA guys are through with testing. 

[+Cafeman]

On 12/12/2021 at 3:52 PM, Razzie.P said:

We may be in the minority, though.  I made a similar plea to stop locking gameplay content over in the late Amico forum, and virtually everyone who replied seemed to disagree, stating they “like the reward,” and “it gives players a reason to play the campaign.”   

I like the reward of hidden characters and tracks unlocking as you progress.  But it shouldn't be locked behind a sadistic requirement of a huge number of hours playrd, for example, and there should eventually be an Unlock Code revealed. 

[Steven Pendleton]

Requiring players to unlock things in multiplayer games is complete garbage game design for several reasons.

 

First, players will have to go through the process of unlocking whatever it is that they want to unlock. If this thing is whatever suits their playstyle the best, that means that they have to play without their single best option for the duration of the time it takes to get whatever that is = player is forced by the developers to play suboptimally, putting them at a disadvantage. It's extremely annoying to be forced to play the game using equipment that you hate because it doesn't fit your playstyle just so you can get the things that do. Nobody likes this, and I could rant about this for a long time, but I will stop here.

 

Second, for those players who buy games late, the above ^ puts new players at a disadvantage, as the players who started earlier could possibly have whatever unlockable crap they need to play optimally, while the new players have to go through the process of getting their thing. This does also disregard the difference in level of practice between someone who is playing the game for the first time and someone who has several hundreds or thousands hours of time playing, of course. This also applies in reverse to those players who prefer whatever default equipment the game gives the player, as those players will automatically, even on launch day, have an advantage over all equally skilled players who prefer different options instead.

 

Ideally, everything is available to all players at all times, and only individual players' skill levels set them apart, not some arbitrary annoying chores forced upon them by the devs that prevent them from playing properly until said stupid chores are completed. I used to play Battlefield somewhat competitively with some of the best players in the world until Battlefield V was garbage and I stopped playing, so yeah, I kind of know what I'm talking about.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Steven Pendleton

[jhd]

On 12/10/2021 at 12:56 PM, NeonSpaceBeagle said:

Tutorial mandates that you must progress through in order to even start the game.  ALWAYS a giant NOPE from me.    I paid for the game, let me start at the beginning.  I don't care if I suck.   

 

I can think of at least one game (and there may well be others) where I actually got stuck on the tutorial level! 

 

There was some timed sequence in the tutorial that I was just unable to master after several attempts, so I was never actually able to access the substantive content of the game. That was money wasted! 

 

[jhd]

On 12/12/2021 at 4:52 PM, Razzie.P said:

I’d even go so far as to say that all locked “gameplay content” can go f itself.   Cosmetics, bells n’ whistles, that sort of thing, fine… lock the hell out of it.  But tracks, cars, fighting rosters, multiplayer levels, etc, should never be locked, in my opinion.

 

Many years ago, I purchased some racing game simply because of the wide range of vehicles included -- I distinctly recall a firetruck being one of the options.

 

I was so very upset when I discovered that almost all of the vehicles were unlockable and so not available from the beginning. Had this information been available on the box, I never would have bought the game.  

[Ninjabba]

well, this is a bit of a future projection but most likely NFT's will kill off any joy for a lot of future games T_T

 

just bumped into this nightmare

 

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/01/konami-pisses-everyone-off-for-castlevanias-35th-anniversary

[Keatah]

I avoid anything to do with NFT, DRM, Whaling, micro-transactions, and micromanaged in-game DLC.

[NeonSpaceBeagle]

Money dorks sucking the fun out of everything as usual.

[Tanooki]

What's the real break down on the Konami one?  I saw the page but didn't read the pages of small print.

One of the posts was the popular Vampire Killer score itself.  I saw in what little I scraped through at the time a time frame of validity?  Do you like own the music for like a year, or just a copy of the music and then lose the rights?  It's very confusing what is being auctioned if you don't actually own a damn thing, or just own a copy of it for only a small year or something window?

[Leonard Smith]

Scrolling through through EULA agreements and legal crap before I'm able to proceed with a game. 
Been seeing this more and more as I try out some games on Xbox Game Pass.

 

[crade]

The ones that I always hate are when the game has multiplayer, but it doesn't tell you how to access it, and when you google it you find out 

you need to play singleplayer for 1/2 hour before you are "allowed" to play multiplayer..  So you and your friend, probably after already waiting for some update

to download just to start the game, are sitting there playing single player separately just to be allowed to play together and complaining to each other how you can't play together for another 1/2 hour..  

All this before you can even try the game out together to see if it's good/fun as a coop game. 

 

Then your game night is soon over and arg I hate those games!  Why do they do this so often these days?  I know it's on purpose, what is the benefit!

[Razzie.P]

24 minutes ago, crade said:

The ones that I always hate are when the game has multiplayer, but it doesn't tell you how to access it, and when you google it you find out 

you need to play singleplayer for 1/2 hour before you are "allowed" to play multiplayer..  So you and your friend, probably after already waiting for some update

to download just to start the game, are sitting there playing single player separately just to be allowed to play together and complaining to each other how you can't play together for another 1/2 hour..  

All this before you can even try the game out together to see if it's good/fun as a coop game. 

 

Then your game night is soon over and arg I hate those games!  Why do they do this so often these days?  I know it's on purpose, what is the benefit!

Yeah... my "co-op bestie" and I have had quite a few game nights ruined by that exact thing.   It has never really ruined an entire game for us, but definitely crapped on some game nights.

[Leonard Smith]

1 hour ago, crade said:

The ones that I always hate are when the game has multiplayer, but it doesn't tell you how to access it, and when you google it you find out 

you need to play singleplayer for 1/2 hour before you are "allowed" to play multiplayer..  So you and your friend, probably after already waiting for some update

to download just to start the game, are sitting there playing single player separately just to be allowed to play together and complaining to each other how you can't play together for another 1/2 hour..  

All this before you can even try the game out together to see if it's good/fun as a coop game. 

 

Then your game night is soon over and arg I hate those games!  Why do they do this so often these days?  I know it's on purpose, what is the benefit!

I didn't even know that this was a thing.  
Which games are doing this?

 

[crade]

49 minutes ago, Leonard Smith said:

I didn't even know that this was a thing.  
Which games are doing this?

 

Seem to be running to this more and more.  I recall path of exile did this to us..  

We had similar problem with the escapists, but I believe we weren't actually forced to play that one just

a misunderstanding because the first level in that game just doesn't allow multiplayer at all and wasn't exactly clear

Did "outward" do this too?

Unfortunately I have a terrible memory and those games go in the "do not play" bin pretty quick

[Leonard Smith]

12 minutes ago, crade said:

Seem to be running to this more and more.  I recall path of exile did this to us..  

We had similar problem with the escapists, but I believe we weren't actually forced to play that one just

a misunderstanding because the first level in that game just doesn't allow multiplayer at all and wasn't exactly clear

Did "outward" do this too?

Unfortunately I have a terrible memory and those games go in the "do not play" bin pretty quick

It's fine.

It doesn't sound like the type of game I play anyway.  
Kind of concerning though...back in the day, 2P mode was always available and also served as a way to add more life to a game after you mastered it.

[Razzie.P]

A few off the top of my head are –

 

(and to be clear, I absolutely loved ALL of these games, but they do make the player jump through some BS to co-op)

All 4 “Souls” games
Bloodborne
Nioh
Toukiden 1 and 2 (I think… memory’s a little fuzzy on those)
Monster Hunter World

Nioh was kind of a special case.  My co-op buddy spend a couple of days trying to get to the point where we could play together, and finally just gave up.    I played the game solo, loved it, got the platinum trophy – but I have no doubt that I would have enjoyed it more, and put in a LOT more hours of playtime if I could have done a couple/few playthroughs with my friend.  In the name of “git gud” difficultly, the BS co-op requirements kinda ruined the fun factor quite a bit.
 

[crade]

11 minutes ago, Razzie.P said:

A few off the top of my head are –

 

(and to be clear, I absolutely loved ALL of these games, but they do make the player jump through some BS to co-op)

All 4 “Souls” games
Bloodborne
Nioh
Toukiden 1 and 2 (I think… memory’s a little fuzzy on those)
Monster Hunter World

Nioh was kind of a special case.  My co-op buddy spend a couple of days trying to get to the point where we could play together, and finally just gave up.    I played the game solo, loved it, got the platinum trophy – but I have no doubt that I would have enjoyed it more, and put in a LOT more hours of playtime if I could have done a couple/few playthroughs with my friend.  In the name of “git gud” difficultly, the BS co-op requirements kinda ruined the fun factor quite a bit.
 

Darksouls is a bit unfair, they don't exactly make you jump through hoops, it's more that they were trying to experiment with sort of a fusion of singleplayer and multiplayer..  they don't so much make you jump through hoops to play coop as the game doesn't have coop, it's a singleplayer game with splashes of multiplayer here and there, it wasn't meant to play with a buddy at all, it's meant to get "glimpses" of random other players here and there and occasionally have other players games cross paths with yours..  Not sure it was entirely successful, but I wouldn't class it as "made me jump through hoops to do coop"

[Razzie.P]

1 hour ago, crade said:

Darksouls is a bit unfair, they don't exactly make you jump through hoops, it's more that they were trying to experiment with sort of a fusion of singleplayer and multiplayer..  they don't so much make you jump through hoops to play coop as the game doesn't have coop, it's a singleplayer game with splashes of multiplayer here and there, it wasn't meant to play with a buddy at all, it's meant to get "glimpses" of random other players here and there and occasionally have other players games cross paths with yours..  Not sure it was entirely successful, but I wouldn't class it as "made me jump through hoops to do coop"

Maybe.  I’ve seen both sides of that argument beat to death for many, many years (over a decade?) now.  

Mostly, I feel the same as you about it being single player first, with the co-op intended as enhancement of sort (although I can certainly understand the other side of the arguments too) but if a game that inspired a number of “how to play co-op” sites, along with formulas, macros, and breakdowns of level requirement, location requirement, and item usage (all just to play co-op) doesn’t count as jumping through hoops, then I can’t imagine that anything ever would meet the criteria   ?

They did make it a lot easier to connect after a late patch, and much easier in sequels by adding things like passwords and such to help ensure you and your intended co-op buddy are able to connect much more easily. 

 

Even with Nioh (which ripped off the DS formula) I'm told the developers have patched it to make it less of a pain to play with friends, but I finished playing long before that happened.

Whether it didn’t work out how they wanted (hence the patch and sequels) or it worked exactly how it should, that’s for sure 1 design choice that ruined those games for a LOT of people who just wanted to connect and live the “Jolly Cooperation” promise
 

[crade]

Now what they really need is a full coop version that has both and still has the messages and ghosts from other coop parties so you can join together with another random coop team for epic boss battles and/or team pvp battles!  lol

[NeonSpaceBeagle]

I kinda hate silence during long load times.   At least play a little jingle.

[CapitanClassic]

Secret of Mana (SNES) also does this, with the girl and sprite character not being available for multiplayer until later in the game. It isn’t too long, as I believe the girl joins the party after the first boss, and the sprite joins on the 3rd/4th boss. This really only amounts to maybe 20min-30mins, and it was cool enough that you could play a multiplayer action RPG anyway.