Bottomless Pits. Seriously, do those things make any literal sense at all?
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.
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...
Hmm... I'm thinking you'd appreciate the new Kirby game in development.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK4gKc9OuTk
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.
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.
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.
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.