-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Game design philosophies that bother you.
- Thread starter DeaconKnowledge
- Start date
Agree with the people that says Linearity = Bad.
I just hate how reviewers these days think a game needs to be open ended and emergent in order to be a good game. Pretty much all games that do this fail at giving us a more epic story than the ones that tell you a story nicely scripted by the creator.
I am also sick of the generic-create-your-character that does not talk in game, the sad part being the developer + reviewer think this will allow you to immerse yourself as the character. What a bullshit.
I just hate how reviewers these days think a game needs to be open ended and emergent in order to be a good game. Pretty much all games that do this fail at giving us a more epic story than the ones that tell you a story nicely scripted by the creator.
I am also sick of the generic-create-your-character that does not talk in game, the sad part being the developer + reviewer think this will allow you to immerse yourself as the character. What a bullshit.
Yes, I also hate this thing although I didn't write it. I just like the character to be itself. This gives the game more identity.
I forgot to mention the most annoying thing of all in my opinion, endlessly multiple ways. Should I go this way or that way? This has no thing to do with linearity, it is something else. I don't recall a specific example right now, but I hope the idea is clear.
Nessus said:
Considering movies took a shit ton of structure and techniques from theatre, maybe games will take a lot from movies. Just a thought.
And I dont know what having a silent protag has to do with non interactive cutscenes verses cutscenes where I can run around a room while people talk.
Pounding a button to accomplish simple things. What is the thinking behind this? Is mashing the A button supposed to make me feel Batman's strain to pull a damn grate down? Why is Batman even straining to rip a grate off? Shouldn't games make me feel like a badass, rather than someone who struggles to do something mundane?
harriet the spy
Member
Thinking that being able to save anytime is always a good thing (but I do like a good save state- like what's on DS).
And to preempt the inevitable : "What's wrong with more options? don't use it if you don't like it. "
The problem is that difficulty is not balanced towards playing like this at all. I don't necessarily want to keep replaying the same parts over and over (though if the gameplay is truly great, that shouldn't be _such_ an issue), but I do want to feel genuine stress when in a nasty firefight (or boss fight!).
Good checkpoints implementation can be pretty nice, but to this day the most frenetic shoot outs I had in an FPS where fighting those T-800 / Dark troopers in Dark Forces. Knowing I had to restart the whole level if I fucked up too much was really building up stress, and often I would just end up blasting all my ammos like a psycho (like that final scene in Scarface..)
Some games do work much better by being able to save anytime, but I think others suffer from it. Just my opinion..
And to preempt the inevitable : "What's wrong with more options? don't use it if you don't like it. "
The problem is that difficulty is not balanced towards playing like this at all. I don't necessarily want to keep replaying the same parts over and over (though if the gameplay is truly great, that shouldn't be _such_ an issue), but I do want to feel genuine stress when in a nasty firefight (or boss fight!).
Good checkpoints implementation can be pretty nice, but to this day the most frenetic shoot outs I had in an FPS where fighting those T-800 / Dark troopers in Dark Forces. Knowing I had to restart the whole level if I fucked up too much was really building up stress, and often I would just end up blasting all my ammos like a psycho (like that final scene in Scarface..)
Some games do work much better by being able to save anytime, but I think others suffer from it. Just my opinion..
BloodySinner
Banned
Knowingly releasing a broken product and charging full price for it.
Aside from stuff probably already mentioned, but here are two minor things I've been kind of thinking about lately:
busy character designs- This isn't directed just at Nomura, but I've been getting increasingly put off by JRPG designs where the characters are just loaded with tons of random details that attempt to make the character stand out from the rest of the world. Granted, this isn't exactly a new phenomenon.
Attempts at unique sounding names-Star Ocean 3's protagonist was named Fate Linegod, and the protagonist of SO4 was named Edge Maverick. Final Fantasy now has three protagonists named after weather terminology. There's nothing wrong with unique names, provided they don't sound stupid. Nobody should think the name Fate Linegod sounds like a good name for a character. Ever.
busy character designs- This isn't directed just at Nomura, but I've been getting increasingly put off by JRPG designs where the characters are just loaded with tons of random details that attempt to make the character stand out from the rest of the world. Granted, this isn't exactly a new phenomenon.
Attempts at unique sounding names-Star Ocean 3's protagonist was named Fate Linegod, and the protagonist of SO4 was named Edge Maverick. Final Fantasy now has three protagonists named after weather terminology. There's nothing wrong with unique names, provided they don't sound stupid. Nobody should think the name Fate Linegod sounds like a good name for a character. Ever.
Night_Trekker
Member
zoukka said:
Maybe not, considering theatric movies are niche and not non-existent.
There would be nothing gained (and a lot lost) by completely abandoning non-interactive cutscenes in games, and there would be no good reason to do so outside of pleasing gamers with some weird hang-up. Good thing it will never happen.
Nairume said:
I hate this. I especially hate the obnoxious character names in the Tales series.
Not really a game design philosophy. More about arrogance, imo. "We're Infinity Ward. We charge whatever we want for the product we made and you'll only be able to play as we intended. We also don't need a Beta, because we know this game is going to sell so we just put it out and try to fix it afterwards."BloodySinner said:Knowingly releasing a broken product and charging full price for it.
jetsetfluken
Member
The QTE's in Sonic Unleashed made the few genuinely enjoyable portions feel tiresome and stressful.
I really hate having .5 seconds to press an exact button (if you press any other it starts you from square one).
The final boss was very frustrating because of this, besides all the other inclusions.
Stop the QTE's, devs.
I really hate having .5 seconds to press an exact button (if you press any other it starts you from square one).
The final boss was very frustrating because of this, besides all the other inclusions.
Stop the QTE's, devs.
Haunted said:
NullPointer said:
msdstc said:
Dr. Zoidberg said:
You guys must loathe Demon's Souls. :lol
I for one don't think it's a good idea to single out a design philosophy that "bothers" me... I'm much more concerned with whether or not a game is good when all is said and done.
That is to say: games with great design philosophies can still suck, and games with what sound like horrible design philosophies on paper can end up being awesome (the first time I heard Katamari Damacy explained to me...).
Though to address some of the points that have been raised in this thread...
-I love Open-world/Sandbox gameplay. I'm good at making my own fun. BUT- a strong enough story almost demands linearity. If you are crafting a deep narrative as one of the main facets of your game, it needs to be experienced at the pace and in the order you intended.
-I am surprised to see the love of HUDs in this thread. I have come to treasure the removal of HUDs and crosshairs completely in favor of in-gameworld feedback about the relevant information. I loved this about Far Cry 2, and replaying Half-Life 2 with no HUD or crosshair was amazing. There is nothing like an extremely intense battle with 50 zombies waiting for an elevator to arrive with no onscreen indicator of your health, feeling like death is coming for you at any moment, finally surviving, only to hear the ever-helpful voice chime in from your suit in the ensuing calm, "Blood loss detected. User death imminent." I could almost see the grin on Gordon Freeman's face between labored breaths. Thanks a lot, HEV :lol
-That said, I HATE the OMGYOURSCREENISPULSATINGREDSTUFF effect of being near death in modern games. And WTF, Bayonetta- you already HAVE an onscreen health bar. Why???
-Tutorials in games with complex mechanics don't bother me at all, except you should goddamn well be able to skip them the second time you're playing through it!
-I suppose my biggest complaint across all games would be, as raised earlier in this thread, "artificial difficulty"- the increase of "challenge" by way of simply making enemies have more HP/do more damage and making you weaker. Where is the increase in AI tactics, or more stuff like my favorite counterexample, Crysis- on the hardest difficulties, onscreen indicators of grenades incoming are gone, and the enemies speak as they naturally should in Korean. If you speak Korean, I suppose this does nothing for you, but man I was impressed when I saw that.
Barberetti
Member
seady said:
Loads of players, myself included, put themselves in the characters place when they play these types of games. If the character doesn't talk, it helps with the immersion. The last think I want is some other guys voice coming out of my characters mouth when it talks to someone.
Fighting game mechanics in general.
Random button combinations of arbitrary complexity, that has nothing what so ever to do with the mechanics and timing of real fighting, and everything to do with pedantic, manic extremely nerdish wishing to remember otherwise useless patterns and skills. It could equally well be some weird rhythm action game or a puzzler if you only looked at the button presses.
Also the fact that you are asked to pay the same amount of money for twenty something stages/rings and an equal amount of nicely modelled characters, versus for example a platforming game where wastly more work and time has been put into designing the levels, enemies and gamestructure, boggles my mind.
Random button combinations of arbitrary complexity, that has nothing what so ever to do with the mechanics and timing of real fighting, and everything to do with pedantic, manic extremely nerdish wishing to remember otherwise useless patterns and skills. It could equally well be some weird rhythm action game or a puzzler if you only looked at the button presses.
Also the fact that you are asked to pay the same amount of money for twenty something stages/rings and an equal amount of nicely modelled characters, versus for example a platforming game where wastly more work and time has been put into designing the levels, enemies and gamestructure, boggles my mind.
Night_Trekker
Member
zoukka said:
Immersion has nothing to do with how effectively an author can tell a story. If we're actually interested in the quality of the stories being told, we're going to have to grant the author some measure of authorial control to do that, and sometimes that's going to mean less player control. There's no realistic way around this. Let me know when we have computer programs intelligent enough to construct well-balanced plots and characters on the fly in reaction to player choice.
This debate is similar to the silly debates over linear versus open-world game design. The bottom line is open-world game design is good at achieving certain things that linear games are not and vice versa. Hoping one approach will disappear in favor of the other is short-sighted and ridiculous. Neither is superior to the other, but one is sometimes preferable to the other depending on what you're trying to do or achieve with your game, and neither is going to disappear from game design.
Scripted events are always better when they are able to deliver all the same info a cut-scene currently is. When it's impossible, I'm fine with cinematics rolling. That is not the case however, because the industry is young.
And I just want a shift in balance. Not a total removal of cut-scenes.
And I just want a shift in balance. Not a total removal of cut-scenes.
Night_Trekker
Member
Hawkian said:
So do I, but I don't want all the games I play to be like that.
New, medium-unique ways of telling stories... that's exciting shit. It's one of the big reasons I still love and care about gaming. I'm all for innovation. I find innovation in storytelling fascinating.
But throwing out everything else we know about storytelling from other mediums due to some misguided notion that that stuff doesn't "belong" to the video game as a medium and as therefore shouldn't apply to storytelling attempts in video games... that's just stupid.
zoukka said:
Wrong. A scripted event is better if what you want to achieve can be achieved more efficiently by a scripted event. Scripted events are not superior to passive cutscenes, they're just different. You may prefer one over the other, but neither can perfectly replace the other.
You're right that the industry is young. Smart developers are still trying to figure out what makes a scripted, interactive event better for storytelling than a passive cutscene in certain situations. Smart developers do not assume one is superior to the other because one "belongs" to gaming and interactivity.
RockmanWhore
Member
Overly intrusive tutorial for obvious things that makes games even more incomprehensible. I remember having a hard time learning to play Metal Gear Ac!d 2 because of that :lol Japanese devs seems particularly guilty of that, I understand that games needs to be accessible but most time it's more confusing than anything.
No pause in cutscene in games with tons of cutscenes or dialog (Mass Effect)
Infinite respawn of ennemies with no AI (Call of Duty series)
Lack of proper response of hit in online shooter. It sucks, but we can't do much about that with current network technology:lol I want every shooter to feel like Left 4 Dead or Killzone 2, every bullet must have an impact! Well, maybe in a few years....
No pause in cutscene in games with tons of cutscenes or dialog (Mass Effect)
Infinite respawn of ennemies with no AI (Call of Duty series)
Lack of proper response of hit in online shooter. It sucks, but we can't do much about that with current network technology:lol I want every shooter to feel like Left 4 Dead or Killzone 2, every bullet must have an impact! Well, maybe in a few years....
i absolutely detest how for some reason every action game needs some sort of a 'everything is exploding get out of structure X' segments..i hate timed segments that have me look for multiple items (bombs, coins, whatever)..i hate how games that nail one genera insist on including elements of other genres for shits and giggles..or 'variety' and failing miserably but not before annoying the hell out of me (Im looking at you platforming in ninja gaiden and dmc)...but there should be a special layer of hell reserved for devs who release something that could have been good if only the company hadn't bought that one extra sandwich and splurged for a beta tester ..and there are way too many games in this category
Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
An absolutely glorious quote from Bioware on the subject:
( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/shepard-is-heterosexual-by-choice )
Things I hate about videogames:
- DLC planned games/DLC day one
- Not being able to skip/pause cut-scenes
- Grinding in JRPG's
- Cliche save the world stories in JRPG's
- Higher difficulties = enemies with more HP that do more damage and have 100% accuracy
- Adding achievements/trophies that you have to collect most of the time useless crap without a treasure map (Batman:AA did it right)
- Online MP achievements/trophies
- Infinite spawning enemies
- No option for customizable controls
- When devs go Graphics > Frame-rate
- Adding horrible MP just for the heck of it when the game is clearly SP focused
- Not being able to start the games at higher difficulties from the start
- Slow "realistic" unresponsive controls
Night_Trekker said:
Well you just said what I said. If the info you want to give to the player can be given to him/her, without taking control away, or changing to a whole new set of assets/point of view, you should do it. If you don't have the resources to do that, then that's fine. Otherwise it isn't.
Lionheart1827
Member
HiddenWings said:
I still have nightmares back in 97 trying to beat Control in Goldeneye 007 on 00 Agent difficulty. Fucking protecting natalya. Damnit that was annoying.
Night_Trekker said:
No.
The videogames medium has so much to offer. We dont need to resolve to non-interactive cutscenes when the medium is defined by interaction. Talking strictly about immersion, watching cutscenes ALWAYS takes you out of the game.
To give some examples:
I hated Twilight Princess´ focus on a cutscene-heavy story. Whereas Ocarina of Time did such a great job of immersing you in Hyrule, by only showing key scenes in cutscenes. A franchise that is the master of videogame storytelling would be Halflife 1, 2 and Episodes. No cutscenes whatsoever, and you feel just so immersed, it´s incredible.
As for the future, I´d love to see developers like Square Enix take some risks and change the storytelling of a FinalFantasy-main game into the above. It´d feel completely different, and most likely wouldnt be worse...quite the opposite.
To conclude: EVERY time you "have to" take away control from the player, you´re giving in to flawing your game (as a developer).
Wasting the player's time. For example, failing a mission in GTA leads to the player having to go back to the gun shop & hot dog stand, and then having to drive all the way back to the start of the mission. These menial tasks are in no way challenging and should not have to be repeated.
someguyinahat
Member
keithm said:
Oh, I dunno. I kinda liked this. Batman isn't superhuman, he's just strong and has gadgets. He's ripping off grates that appear to be bolted into the wall - that's hardly mundane, and for him not to strain to do that would make him look more like Superman than Batman.
I kinda liked "feeling the strain" through the mash, especially when after upgrading the claw, ripping them off becomes much easier. In this case, no, I don't think this was a bad game design decision.
Integrated tutorials are one of the few design philosophies that I would like to see disappear. Not necessarily because 'I know what I'm doing pls stop explaining it', but rather that it ruins the start of the game so frequently. Okami gives off a horrible first impression, firstly because of the incredibly slow text crawl that's not particularly interesting, but more importantly, you have to play the most boring tutorial for what seems like two hours while they explain the most obvious stuff to you. Zelda TP has similar issues that the opening part was incredibly tedious. A game that starts out shitty is more or less shitty by default to me.
Contrast those two examples with Link to the Past where you start out breaking in to the castle on a stormy night and rescue the god damned princess! That opening is great and sets you up for the adventure real nice giving you an introduction to the important characters and motivations, etc.
Contrast those two examples with Link to the Past where you start out breaking in to the castle on a stormy night and rescue the god damned princess! That opening is great and sets you up for the adventure real nice giving you an introduction to the important characters and motivations, etc.
Squeak said:
I agree with parts, and totally disagree with others. I love it in fighters when thinks make sense, such as strong blows stunning an opponent, enough to land more blows, weak attacks being used to fish for openings in defense, and combos being skills that are delivered so quick and precisely, that the opponent is taken off guard, and cannot block.
But I do think that the over-complexity introduced in many fighters is what holds them back, as a genre. Would SFIV be worse, if it's combos where more like "magic series" chains, like Tatsunoko VS Capcom, rather than 1/60th of a second button presses? (that are expected to be done online, over lag, even!)
Now when it comes to Stages/Models in a Fighter, VS a platformer, being worth equal price, I find it totally fair. I always look to fighters to define the advancement in graphics, more than any genre. The characters are on such a higher level of detail, the animations are normally more intricate, and the backgrounds feel like locations, rather than a bunch of landmarks connected by a few stretches of lower-detail expanse. In a fighter, each stage SHOULD be all unique assets, at least when it comes to graphical elements. Most other genre's have multiple stages that stretch the same assets across multiple stages, and the bosses are generally just big retoolings of some basic enemies presented earlier.
I find well-executed fighters to be one of the closest things gaming has to a "Quality > Quantity" approach.
selig said:
I used to feel the way you do, but now, I really don't think it's universally true.
Look at Half-Life, for an example. The game communicates through setting extremely effectively much of the time. But in-game "cutscenes" where characters talk to your moving first-person camera range from decent to maddening, especially on repeat playthroughs. The sequence where you're in Dr. Kleiner's lab in HL2 feels really drawn out when you have the opportunity to hop around and look at random stuff.
Episode 1 didn't change the formula that much, but Episode 2 mixed things up by having certain key moments of the story more or less remove camera and movement control from the player. If you ask me, those moments are some of the strongest storytelling moments in the entire franchise, largely because they restrict your freedom. It's not truly a cutscene, but it's essentially non-interactive. The Darkness used these sequences more liberally, and was stronger for it as well.
Telling story during gameplay can be an incredibly powerful tool when properly pulled off, and it's something I'd like to see happen more. Still, when you choose to follow that path, you're necessarily limiting the tools you have available to communicate setting, plot, and character. Many games whose stories I feel are well-executed, on the whole (Metal Gear Solid, Killer7, Phoenix Wright) could not work without extensive non-interactive sequences. In some cases, these non-interactive portions complement existing interactive sections and strengthen the overall message. Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are often praised for their in-game storytelling, but those simple tales wouldn't have the resonance they have without the context set up by (relatively short) non-interactive cutscenes.
A tool is a tool. Just how there is a place in film for the all-black screen with text, there is a place in games for removing interaction. This tool probably doesn't merit as frequent usage as it receives from most games on the market, but I'd still be sad to see it go.
When developers try to max out a due harware in a lazy way, sacrificing framerate, engine stability (texture pop-up, sound glitches, pop-up)
It's worst when they add alot of details, knowing beforehand that they wouldn't have the time to kill every map bug, and release a decent product. Western philosophy of "more is better" mostly.
It's worst when they add alot of details, knowing beforehand that they wouldn't have the time to kill every map bug, and release a decent product. Western philosophy of "more is better" mostly.
Ideally, the storyline/tutorial segments would have methods to properly skip the sequence if you so desire. For example, in the Halflife 2 example, if you start wandering around the lab looking at things, the game would recognize that you aren't paying attention via your actions and cut it short. Something like "Oh, are we boring you? Well, let's move on... I have a feeling Doctor Freeman is eager to proceed".
The other option is to have a button that interrupts conversation. I seem to recall reading about a game (Mass Effect 2, maybe? Haven't gotten to it yet) where forcing the in-game conversations to speed up actually had consequences; characters felt you were being rude by interrupting them, etc. I'm not looking at it as a punishment, but as a way to push an interactive story sequence along; you simply say "I know, we need to be going!".
As for tutorials? Let the player run through the tutorial portion on their own, and only give them clues / hints if they remain in one part of the area for too long. That way, a player who already knows what to do can simply race through the tutorial portion without having to stop for all of the help features. Ideally, the game should be able to know when someone needs help, though I'm not sure we're there yet.
Tutorials also could be improved by making them... less like training rooms.
KingOfF00LS
Member
djtiesto said:
This is a great list. I'd modify #3 to also include any focus on multiplayer for a game that clearly is singleplayer.
Also, and this is a big one, using amazing graphics as an excuse for a short game. A 20 hour game with good graphics is way, way preferable to an 8 hour game with great visuals.
Chû Totoro
Member
A lot of devs and even journalists are making wrong statements like :
Lot of hours of play = worth the price
Mature = sex and/or violence
Online = obligatory
And to finish the DLC value is only attached to what it brings. New content like skins or things that won't make you enjoy the game more is not necessary.
Best DLC support for me this gen : Burnout Paradise, most of LBP contents (MGS pack, Pirates Pack...)
Lot of hours of play = worth the price
Mature = sex and/or violence
Online = obligatory
And to finish the DLC value is only attached to what it brings. New content like skins or things that won't make you enjoy the game more is not necessary.
Best DLC support for me this gen : Burnout Paradise, most of LBP contents (MGS pack, Pirates Pack...)
Devil Theory
Member
Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but one thing that also drives me absolutely insane is not being able to even touch water, walk in it, or if you do, you die instantly. Stupidest thing I've ever seen. I can understand dying rather quickly if you go underwater, but not being able to touch it or walk in it at all? It's so fake it almost ruins the entire experience, make it a part of the game, but don't make it an obvious substitute barrier.