Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What game mechanics were good, or at least tolerable in the time they were introduced, but need to go away, or are just plain bad? I personally feel it's parts in games where, after you complete an objective, you have to go back to a certain place to be given your next objective. Why can't you just tell me my next objective right after I finish the previous objective?

All it really does is artificially lengthen the game.

It wouldn't even be so bad if you were just instantly transported to the area where you learn your next objective. Having to travel back to that area breaks the flow of the game.

Being unable to move and turn at the same time. Resident Evil is the biggest offender in that department, but there are others.

Back-tracking is annoying, I agree, but I feel like it's a necessary evil until they can give us more actual content in games.

"All it really does is artificially lengthen the game." Think that might be their sketchy plan.

Though for that one it promotes the player to travel around, maybe exploring the area some more. These usually happen in sandbox games so it makes sense they'd want you to run around the area.



I believe that nearly all gamemechs done right are fine, any that are too poor should just be thrown out..

-Like sprints where you need to button-mash, San Andreas comes to mind.
-Escort missions with the bran damaged NPC who seems to always run into manage and dies in a few hits.
-Water levels. Just this done bad inspires rage.
-Random mini-games that are pointless and mandatory to progress.
-Hiding from combat for 3 seconds to have your health regenerate like a beast.

Again, only if they're done wrong.

Maybe not "gameplay" but I hate it when games don't allow you to change difficulty levels mid campaign.

I might not be good at one particular game but I still want to continue for the story. I hate it when it doesn't allow me to change difficulty levels up or down. It's stupid.

I agree with BloodRain. Mostly all game play mechanics done right can really work. For instance, back-tracking sucks but if the level changes its look after the firs time it can be really effective. Same with health regen. It's unrealistic but it's a good mechanic because it promotes aggressiveness. It works really well in MP because it stops camping a fair bit.

Unpausable Cutscenes.



I actually like this. To me it feels more natural to tap a button repeatedly (or further extent an analog stick) rather than hold it down to add greater intensity to an existing action.

I think the only game I've played with health regen was the Hulk: Ultimate Destruction on the GameCube. In that game, health regen made sense, because the Hulk DOES have accelerated healing.

So getting health packs after being shot make sense as well?

It's videogames. Unless you are trying to ARMA, health regen works.

And yes, unpausable cutscenes are the worst, especially long ones.

What do you mean "getting health packs after getting shot makes sense"? You mean that it's unrealistic that there would be a bunch of medkits laying around?

What does ARMA mean?

I can relate to the cutscenes entry somewhat, because one of my main gripes with Fight Night Champions was that you couldn't automatically skip cutscenes. For a lot of them, you had to pause and then wait for the game to tell you that you can skip the cutscene.

You said, health regen made sense in Hulk. I guess I assumed that getting health from med packs made more sense than health regen.

ARMA is a realistic military shooter that does't have health regen.

I said it made sense in the game because accelerated healing is one of the Hulk's powers.

I mean, a bunch of medkits being littered across a wide area isn't exactly realistic either.

I feel a little conflicted with unskippable cutscenes. I personally never play a game with any intention of skipping the cutscenes, and I'm also a big proponent of the idea that sometimes the developers know best and that it can be good to limit player control - unskippable cutscenes function as such a device if the developers feel that the story is an important part of the overall experience, and where you have gamers that would potentially skip the cutscenes if they could, but would at the same time be doing themselves a disservice unaware of the fact that they would actually be enhancing their experience by watching the cutscenes.

The real problem imo is where you've already completed the game and just simply want to replay parts of the game without watching the cutscenes again. Some games do a system where they make the cutscenes unskippable the first time you play it but enable you to skip it on subsequent playthroughs, which works to an extent but not when you don't have your completion data saved.



I'm a fan of this as well actually, though specifically in the context of a zombie survival mode of gameplay. I like the challenge it adds, alongside stuff like really long reload times and slower aim intensity. The slow moving, unarmed variety of zombie is naturally at a massive disadvantage compared to the player and I always thought the better way of raising the difficulty rather than simply overwhelming you with numbers was to impose certain physical limitations on the character.

If it was just slow moving, shambling enemies, I wouldn't mind. But say, in RE 4 and 5, there are fast moving enemies with ranged attacks. Not something I particularly like.

Oh yeah absolutely, I'm definitely not a fan of how it's implemented in some of the Resident Evil games.

Surprisingly, though, the thing that makes RE5 enjoyable even with that, is playing co-op with a friend. It's a much smoother experience, as two people working together can compensate for stuff like that.

That being said I definitely don't feel this way with the shoulder buttons.




And of course in cases where the cutscenes take place after the checkpoints and you have to keep reloading at that point.

Originally posted by -Pr-
If it was just slow moving, shambling enemies, I wouldn't mind. But say, in RE 4 and 5, there are fast moving enemies with ranged attacks. Not something I particularly like.

The fast moving ones were usually melee, weren't they? Knife throwers or those heavy machinegun guys usually camped in one spot, for the most part.

I agree, the mechanics do artificially increase the difficulty. OTOH,being forced to stop and aim is pretty realistic, too.

I suck at run and gun anyways, so stop and shoot works for me.

Quicktime events.

How I hate quicktimes. They're either cheap deaths, or they interfere with the flow of gameplay/combat.

I don't mind quick-time events either. I play games for the atmosphere, gameplay and story. Sometimes I feel that quick-time events work well (God Of War for instance).

Stealth segments in non stealth games

please stop, please stop, please stop

An entire LoZ game was ruined by this(Phantom Hourglass)

Originally posted by -Pr-
Being unable to move and turn at the same time. Resident Evil is the biggest offender in that department, but there are others.


I couldn't stand RE5 because of this. It felt so dated and robotic. Simply there for the sake of artificially making the game harder. It wouldn't have sucked so much if RE5 was not so action oriented. It got to the point where I could not even finish the game and I am a hardcore RE fan. Thank god Capcom fixed that issue with RE6.

Originally posted by VG_Addict
What game mechanics were good, or at least tolerable in the time they were introduced, but need to go away, or are just plain bad?.


Clipping, and characters still running forward while facing a wall. Or right on the edge of a cliff. Like enough already. We've got the tech to fully prevent those types of gross errors now.

Originally posted by Cyner
Stealth segments in non stealth games

please stop, please stop, please stop

An entire LoZ game was ruined by this(Phantom Hourglass)

Wind Waker also had stealth segments.

The lack of a scaling/climbing feature in most games, except in circumstances where there are ladders or vines or ropes or a trellis. To wit, in Skyrim. Let's see, there's a steep slope that I can either go around or try to climb. I choose to climb. Okay, now what? What does a person do to ascend a slope? Oh, yeah, jump repeatedly trying to exploit an invisible staircase until you reach the top.

And then there are other games where waist-high or even knee-high obstacles can completely block your movement.

lol Agreed.

Yeah, invisible mountain climbing....hahaha

Originally posted by VG_Addict
Wind Waker also had stealth segments.

Yes it did, but it didn't ruin the game like it did with PH. In PH the Ocean King Temple was one giant stealth section that you had to replay 9000x

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, invisible mountain climbing....hahaha

I spent many an hour doing that in mmos...

Most boss fights are outdated and very predictable. Find weak spot, hit weak spot, repeat a few times. Mix with an occasional new form and find new weak spot, hit new weak spot, repeat.

Boss fights have been the weakest points of a few amazing games over the past several years, like Mass Effect 2 and the first Bioshock. I think they're largely unnecessary these days.

Yep.

Perfect example of how to do a boss fight right and wrong in the same game is Half-Life.

The level with the tentacle is a wicked example of a boss fight. Sneak your way around the level, throw a grenade to blow up the planks holding the door and then burn it. Wicked. Or how the huge Alien thing where you have to run away and then call down a mortar to kill it.

And then you get the last boss at the end of the game. Crap and more crap.

Originally posted by BackFire

Boss fights have been the weakest points of a few amazing games over the past several years, like Mass Effect 2 and the first Bioshock. I think they're largely unnecessary these days.

Totally disagree with you there

still need the boss fights when whatever character it may be eventually meets his antagonist for that big showdown



as for Outdated/Annoying, Invisible walls just there to stop you from exploring the levels even if there's nothing there.

stealth games that use outdated surveillance equipment in modern times.

On the subject of escort/rescue missions, they're only made worse when the character in question ends up getting killed anyway in the story, often times immediately in the following cutscene. I'd list the examples off the top of my head, but they're already flowing out at too high a volume to pick. Altogether, that's usually just a case of bad gameplay/story segregation, and it doesn't help that I never approve of any game that puts production value over general quality of design on a gameplay standpoint (so yes, I do think Quantic Dreams can go suck it). Really, the last escort mission I ever played that was actually fun was the one in Twilight Princess late in the first 1/3 of the main game.

Invisible walls. Especially in games where you are meant to explore everything. If I see a path up to something, and an invisible wall gets in my way, I'm going to get annoyed.

Backtracking for quest objectives. Nope nope nope.

Quicktime events. I've always hated them.

And copout boss fights. I like ones that have complex mechanics to figure out. Those are fun.

Another thing that pisses me off is games where upgrades are key and require exploration for them. It's not the upgrades or exploration of the environment, it's the time when you have two paths and you choose one path and the game locks the door behind you giving no chance ever visit that place again.

The Dead Space games are a prime example of how it's done right. You have the ability to point yourself in the right direction and if you have multiple doors you can go through, just use that ability and go the other way. I have never missed a section in those three games.

This is specific to the 3DS and Wii U 2D Mario games but I hate how the multiplayer doesn't make good use out of having multiple screens and instead forces everyone to share the same perspective. Can be really annoying when you can't see much further ahead or above you when in the singleplayer it's centered completely around your character.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Totally disagree with you there

still need the boss fights when whatever character it may be eventually meets his antagonist for that big showdown



Agreed. A bad boss fight is just a bad boss fight, but I don't think they're outdated.

The Metal Gear franchise was all about the boss fights.. And for action/hack n' slash games, they're kind of a bread and butter selling point (Games like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta. God of War, especially.)

It's very rare for a boss fight to be something other than 'find weak point, hit weak point.' I'm struggling to remember the last boss fight that truly impressed me or felt necessary. Metal Gear Games are good with boss fights, MGS4 was probably the last game I played that had creative boss fights.

Stupid objectives put in a game

i remember one from Alan Wake they make you go find a key to open up a gate when clearly you can just climb over it.

Yeah, I think every game has stupid objectives.

MGS4 had pretty good boss fights (the wolf and octopus were the best) but the end boss fight is stupid. It made no sense and it wasn't fun to control.

Don't make a stealth game have fight mechanics.

The final boss battle in MGS4 was more of a throwback to the battle between Liquid and Snake in MGS1 and was supposed to be more of an emotional, dramatic experience than an engaging gameplay segment.

Metal Gear has without a shadow of a doubt the best boss battles in videogame history (Psycho Mantis and The End stand out in particular), though in sheer epicness you have to give Final Fantasy XI a mention. Boss battles that take hours upon hours to complete, battles that require the cooperation of dozens of highly skilled players, and some bosses that to this day still have not ever been defeated. You can't really top that.

Originally posted by Ben "cA" Risa
Metal Gear has without a shadow of a doubt the best boss battles in videogame history

Shadow of the Colossus?

Hell yeah.....

Hardly. I mean, they could be considered more epic and atmospheric and that was largely the feeling that the game was going for but they didn't really have the genius design that some of Metal Gear's bosses had. Metal Gear has consistently had incredible boss battles and the very best of them are miles beyond any of its competition. I mean, even random battles like the one with Fatman who I brought up the other day was an incredibly well designed boss battle. I can't see a game topping the likes of the Psycho Mantis or The End battle for an extremely long time, if ever. Like, the Psycho Mantis battle might literally not ever be surpassed.

Wow, what a fanboy.

I dare you to say that to me in the Star Wars Versus Forums among my peers and fellow gangbangers, who will not take kindly to you gently mocking me like this.

I would but it would be totally off-topic to talk about MGS in the SWV forum.

Speaking of topic, I suggest you get back to it :backseat-modding:

I feel this image most appropriately represents the effect my little dare has had over Nephthys:

Yeah Neph, I dare you to to say it to him when he runs back home to the safe, protective arms of his peers 313



What about those secrets that you can only stumble on by accident or by reading about it online. And I dont mean easter eggs and the like, more things that are at least somewhat necessary for the game.

Got an example?

I replayed the original Legend of Zelda recently actually and that's a pretty good example. To access a couple of the dungeons you have to burn a random bush in the overworld (there are literally hundreds) and I'm pretty sure you can only really discover it in-game through trial and error.

Reminds of some of the old NES games Angry video game has reviewed, Alot of the stuff you can only work out by trail & error.

Poor Nephthys relies on trial and error to do pretty much anything!hysterical

This really shouldn't turn in to another MGS thread. The boss battles are good, though.

Yeah.

It's not a mechanic but I always find it funny when players go after snipers. I'm playing BF3 and this tank is trying to shoot me from 200 or more feet. They blew up because they forget to look for much closer engies and tanks.

TMYso30L9zI

Bosses with tons of invincible frames
i understand he's/she is the boss. just have him/her have
Block & dodged just as much as me
Not just waive off my strikes

Speaking of bosses, I hate how boss fights bring in regular enemies or how you don't know your attacks are doing anything.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Speaking of bosses, I hate how boss fights bring in regular enemies or how you don't know your attacks are doing anything.

Or how there's a weak point and its not so obvious to you, they made so hard to work it out.

I think bosses as a concept should still be in games; I just don't think it's done well nearly enough.

Psycho Mantis from MGS (among others), Mister Freeze and Ra's in Arkham City, that Asari chick from LOTSB in ME2 wasn't bad.

If we're talking about just final bosses, then maybe.

Final bosses always seem to suck the most. It makes sense when you think about it....how many people complete the game? Make all the good shit at the start.

Bosses don't have to be quirky to be good. I always felt the bosses in RE4 were the best. All of them are different, some are quirky and some are just straight dog fight but they are top quality. It's like the lead up to a boss fight is just as important as the actually fight.

There is nothing more sinister than having this long walk up something to fight a boss and you know it's coming. RE4 did this perfectly.

I guess I don't like having a boss for the sake of having one.