Things in video games you're tired of seeing
- Thread starter supersonic45
- Start date
- Status
Blitzzo
It's Mr. Computer!
Realism. Whatever happened to games where everything had a cartoony look? Or where characters were literally puppets in some puppet theater? Or crayon drawings? Or the colors were surreal and bold? Everything these days has to be dark and edgy with the sole purpose of having nicer, more realistic graphics just to sell a product. Whatever happened to unique visual styles that set games apart from one another, or *gasp*, actually aid gameplay? Yes, there are instances where the "grim and gritty" realistic look is detrimental to gameplay, such as that awful, unreadable number font in Unreal Tournament 3. Quick, what's your health at? I guess you can't tell...
Also, like others have mentioned, QTEs have a special place in Awful Game Ideas Hell. Yeah, let's take control away from the player and mandate button presses in order to... watch more of the cutscene! Also, places where you slip up and perform a QTE to stay alive. If you want my opinion on this, I'd argue that if you slip up and make a crucial mistake, you should be dead, and you should respawn at the last checkpoint, because you clearly failed. Allowing the player to continue unscathed is extremely artificial, and it is the bane of game difficulty.
Also, like others have mentioned, QTEs have a special place in Awful Game Ideas Hell. Yeah, let's take control away from the player and mandate button presses in order to... watch more of the cutscene! Also, places where you slip up and perform a QTE to stay alive. If you want my opinion on this, I'd argue that if you slip up and make a crucial mistake, you should be dead, and you should respawn at the last checkpoint, because you clearly failed. Allowing the player to continue unscathed is extremely artificial, and it is the bane of game difficulty.
Wombatwarlord777
"...What?"
It depends on the stage. If you're in a forest or factory or beach, then no, they do not make sense. But if you're playing through some sort of aerial ruins or even inside a deep canyon... Then yes, I can see that bottomless pits would be an environment-appropriate challenge. One of the things that many people like about Sonic Adventure is that bottomless pits are thrown about less willy-nilly and actually make some sort of sense in the levels that feature them.
Of course, moderation is key here. I actually appreciate bottomless pits if they make a certain level segment more challenging. But I highly dislike it when nearly every level has bottomless pits, because it's an easy (and lazy) way to inflate difficulty throughout the whole game and to avoid having to create more innovative level design.
Eliwood
Member
... but Sonic is the only known game company to come out with some sort of entirely new gimmick every single game and also known to always change up the gameplay. A perfect example would be a transition from Sonic Adventure to SA2, it seems the same, but there is a difference. Then SA2 to Sonic Heroes, look, there's the teamwork thing. It plays slightly similar, but there's a big difference in gameplay. Don't even get me started on the addition of Sonic Riders. And then Sonic Riders changed it's gameplay by simply adding the Zero Gravity thing. Then there was Sonic 06' which... suffice to say had a different gameplay style from the other games.
Or should I go back to the roots, where from Sonic 1, there was just Sonic. No spindashing or anything. Sonic 2, Spindash and Tails. Sonic 3, abilities and special shields, which is definitely changing the gameplay. Then maybe next I should move on to Sonic R, then Sonic 3D blast, heck, even throw in the 3-D world map for Sonic Jam. Maybe I could even talk about X-Treme, but I would hope that at this point my point is proven.[/fanboi]
Last edited:
Earuto
Member
Agreed, the realism is what takes the fun out the video games. I remeber when because it was cartoony, it seemed more fun. For example, Grand Theft Auto. It wasn't all realistc like it was in number 4. It had realism in it but going through the front window of a car if you crash too hard? That's too much.
I peronally hate the overused story lines in games such as beat this person to save this person. Or the become king of this. All of them are the same. War games, play so your country wins the war. It gets old. There's always something new and they need to come up with it. The worse part of it is that they never even try to make it seem unique when doing it. They add a little twist. It's been the same story line for 20 years before I was even born.
Final Radiance
Member
Ah, yes, this too. Not only visual wise, but gameplay wise. I'm not really going to get into the fact that video games are trying to make sense. What ever happened to complete nonsense in a game?
Like saying "Wow, this is cool, I wish I can do that in real life" Or something along those lines. It's just dumb to say "Hey, we should make so it'd be like a real human jumping, ya know, so it'd be harder to get around and stuff" Then frustration occurs..
GrayAngel
Member
In the Sonic series, the physics of falling seem to be a bit inconsistent. In Sonic 2, Super Sonic would die if he fell down a bottomless pit, and he needed Tails to catch him with his plane later on.
After defeating the final boss in Sonic Advance 2, Super Sonic would fall right through the atmosphere and land safely on his feet. WHAT???
I've also noticed an inconsistency in Super Sonic's ability to fly. Sometimes, whenever it is convenient, Super Sonic can fly and battle the final boss in the sky. Other times, he's land-born.
Hmm... I'm thinking you'd appreciate the new Kirby game in development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK4gKc9OuTk
I loved the levels in Sonic Adventure. With wide open spaces, pits only where they make sense to be, and of a somewhat logical design.
The levels in the sequel, however, seemed like a downgrade to me. Pretty much every level was narrow, with pits all over the place, and the structure of the levels looked like nothing you'd ever see in real life.
Realism is what sells nowadays. I remember when games had to do something original to be successful. There was Pokemon Blue/Red, the Gameboy Camera, Primal Rage, Earthbound, ect. None of them made sense, but they were fun and unique.
But now originality doesn't sell as well. People demand games that look "professional" or else it's not worth their time. It has to look good, play long, and have all kinds of extra gimmicks. I've caught myself thinking that way before too.
New games just don't interest me as much anymore. Maybe it's because I'm getting older.
Virt
Trollerskates
@Wombat, true, bottomless pits where they make sense are fine. Such as Whomp Fortress from SM64, because it's a flying fortress in the sky, so you can fall down. Or the Egg Carrier in Sonic Adventure, that makes sense also. But in, say, a lush field, bottomless pits make NO sense whatsoever. What, did someone dig for gold there and forget to fill the hole back up? Yeah, I thought so.
Jellybones
Lawful Neutral
You are completely disregarding the other game franchises. You make it seem like Sonic is the ONLY game that evolves (for better and worse) I won't even bother listing them. And why are you saying that Sonic Heroes to Sonic Riders is an improvement to gameplay...? They are completely different games. And Sonic classics adding minor (but good) things like spindashes and new items aren't really gimmicks.
Sonnarkku
Obamasnow Fan-- With a Hat
Another thing I´m sick of seeing is the music style, seriously? Do they need to make all new musics barely hearable? or the game not even have music during play? (Modern Warfail) Seriously, Darksiders, Mirror´s Edge, Modern Warfare, Silent Hill 5, Socom, Medal of Honor, Killzone 2, what the heck? Even shooting games can also have loud tunes sometimes (Metal Gearz, wich is awesome)
This has got more to do with the gaming industry than with games themselves, but it is a tremendous gripe of mine (as well as a tremendous gripe of many professional game developers and die-hard gamers).
In their mad hunger for money, the executives at most of the big game corporations consistently choose to develop mountains of bland sequels for tired old franchises than take a chance on completely novel ideas. This is not even a secret; game industry executives will proudly and matter-of-factly boast that they do this. This is why we get stuck with the freakin' Legend of Spyro trilogy while next to no mind-blowing original concepts blossom forth. It's not the lack of ideas on the developers' part; it's the fact that whenever a game designer has a brilliant new idea, it gets rejected in favor of a trite cookie-cutter game that is guaranteed to generate quick profits whether it sucks or not.
In their mad hunger for money, the executives at most of the big game corporations consistently choose to develop mountains of bland sequels for tired old franchises than take a chance on completely novel ideas. This is not even a secret; game industry executives will proudly and matter-of-factly boast that they do this. This is why we get stuck with the freakin' Legend of Spyro trilogy while next to no mind-blowing original concepts blossom forth. It's not the lack of ideas on the developers' part; it's the fact that whenever a game designer has a brilliant new idea, it gets rejected in favor of a trite cookie-cutter game that is guaranteed to generate quick profits whether it sucks or not.
Mystyc Cheez
Member
Games that force a certain path. However, this can be done right. Resident Evil 1-3 are great examples, they take a long time to complete, but there are always obstacles on the way, around every corner too. Also, most Sonic games that try to force ONE path with maybe a shortcut that doesn't really make a difference is annoying. What happened to "The Adventures of Sonic The Hedgehog" not "The moving from point A to point B"? Adventures mean exploration not walking in a straight line. Arid Canyon Zone is a wonderful example of exploration.
- Status