Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The Early Conversion to 3d
In the early days of 3d it was extremely popular to transfer your crisp great looking 2d game into a terrible gaudy 3d game for no reason whatsoever. I am one of those people who, at the time, didn't actually think the early 3d looked good at all. In fact I was often perplexed when games that actually looked great decided to look terrible in sequels.

[Mech#4]

The Early Conversion to 3d
In the early days of 3d it was extremely popular to transfer your crisp great looking 2d game into a terrible gaudy 3d game for no reason whatsoever. I am one of those people who, at the time, didn't actually think the early 3d looked good at all. In fact I was often perplexed when games that actually looked great decided to look terrible in sequels.

Oooo, "Escape from Monkey Island", and the artwork was so nice in "Curse of Monkey Island".

[alexandertnt]

Ah the good ol' days of 3D. Where everything turned to jelly when you moved the camera and textures diddnt wrap properly at certain angles.

[itisnotlogical]

Games that are loved because they're stupidly hard and no other reason

This is more of a problem with some fandoms than anything else, but take for example Battletoads. I love Battletoads, but whenever I ask somebody why they liked it, the answer is universally "Because everything else is casual crap for babbies, real men play Battletoads". They have nothing to say about how every level was unique, or how good the graphics were, or the awesome music, or that one part where effing space invaders of all things fly up to your health bar and literally steal your health points. By the way some people talk about Battletoads, you'd think something like Daikatana could be considered a good game if it were made as difficult.

Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

[The Mechanical Man]

Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

That is actually the opposite of one of my pet peeves, where the player is the "chosen one" and is the only one who can save the world/galaxy/whatever. Why can't I just be a random nobody?

[itisnotlogical]

Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

That is actually the opposite of one of my pet peeves, where the player is the "chosen one" and is the only one who can save the world/galaxy/whatever. Why can't I just be a random nobody?

I meant random nobody in the sense that they invent a brand new character just for a licensed game and then never use them again. I can't name any of the guys in Star Wars: Starfighter to save my life.

[alexandertnt]

I would think it would be more of an issue when done badly (which it frequently is). If they invented a new character and it was done really well, it could end up being a well known in-universe-character.



Your taste in video games is wrong
If you play video games that are not tough as nails, your a 5 year old. If you appreciate the graphics of a game for a split second, your an uneducated moron. Cover-based shooter? Go back to pre-school etc. For some reason, playing certain types of games suggests you are of abnormally low intelligence, and/or very young.

Particularly in regards to game-graphics for me (as someone who is interested in both graphics programming, and 3d modelling). Where its just silly simple dumb little "shinies" for silly simple dumb little people (the irony being that literal shinyness in computer graphics is not exactly simple).

Your playing it wrong
When your playing the game "incorrectly", ie your having fun "wrongly" or some such. Damnit, if I want to make an army of villagers, or kill the boss with a knife, I will. And I will enjoy doing it.

Boring loot
Because a +5 sword is *exactly* the same as a +2 sword to me. Making the vast majority of loot in these sorts of games immidiately boring to me, and thus most the game.

I mean, in Magicka you had weapons that would freeze oponents, set them on fire (causing the AI to run around) etc. then you had staffs that would teleport, spawn mines (hell, you could make your sword project mines), and zoom the damn screen. I want a Magicka 2

Your not playing like God and "Winning is everything")

"You stuped n00b moron, your farm setup is unoptimal. You will cost us the game, damn you *insert further abuse about an incorrect villager-to-soldier ratio*". It seems endemic in DOTA-like games, where suboptimal gameplay leads to a torrent of abuse and seemingly genuine displays of hatred.

[Darkmere]

Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

That one is specifically George Lucas' fault. His policy was more or less, anyone making a star wars game was forbidden from referencing the main characters for the movie, unless you got super-special gold-star approval from him personally, or something. i.e. Lucas is a damn nutjob. I'm actually curious how Disney will handle the franchise, but I don't expect change.

[nenjin]

Your taste in video games is wrong
If you play video games that are not tough as nails, your a 5 year old. If you appreciate the graphics of a game for a split second, your an uneducated moron. Cover-based shooter? Go back to pre-school etc. For some reason, playing certain types of games suggests you are of abnormally low intelligence, and/or very young.

Particularly in regards to game-graphics for me (as someone who is interested in both graphics programming, and 3d modelling). Where its just silly simple dumb little "shinies" for silly simple dumb little people (the irony being that literal shinyness in computer graphics is not exactly simple).

Your playing it wrong
When your playing the game "incorrectly", ie your having fun "wrongly" or some such. Damnit, if I want to make an army of villagers, or kill the boss with a knife, I will. And I will enjoy doing it.

Your not playing like God and "Winning is everything")

"You stuped n00b moron, your farm setup is unoptimal. You will cost us the game, damn you *insert further abuse about an incorrect villager-to-soldier ratio*". It seems endemic in DOTA-like games, where suboptimal gameplay leads to a torrent of abuse and seemingly genuine displays of hatred.

This seems like it has little to do with games and everything to do with players.

[Robosaur]

Rock, Paper, Scissors
I don't like how certain attacks/units are better against certain targets and worse than others simply due to a percentage damage increase or loss. Like, spearmen doing extra damage to cavalry, or fire beating wood creatures. I mean, in the case of the fire beating wood creatures thing, it's realistic, but it's boring strategy. I'd like it more if there was gameplay reasons that certain units do better against other units. Like how siege tanks are shit against a horde of zerglings.

[Flying Dice]

Except that sort of type advantage is the bread-and-butter of RTS play, as far as unit strengths and weaknesses go. By and large they make sense, and sometimes there isn't a better way to work the (dis)advantage into gameplay mechanics. Spearmen do well against cavalry in games for the same reasons as in real life, even if the advantage can't be expressed with the same level of complexity. In this case, the damage bonus vs. cavalry exists because the game doesn't model cavalry charges and the way organized units of spearmen can shatter them. In fact, the sort of decision-making you see behind build choices in RTS games is remarkably similar to real life battle planning.


On a personal note, it's hardly boring. The web of interactions between unit types is what creates the challenge; if you can't just spam a "best" unit, you have to quickly act and react to the unit mix of your enemies, creating a continually shifting unit composition on every side. A RTS without this sort of balance is going to be boring, because it will take very little time for players to find an ideal build.

[itisnotlogical]

Oddly enough, I was thinking about the first Battle for Middle-Earth game recently and why I didn't like it so much. I remember that spear/pikemen did extra damage to cavalry that were attempting to trample them, but it didn't matter because cavalry could infinitely stunlock any foot unit by trampling it and the AI almost never used cavalry itself.

Games with short and/or underdeveloped single player campaigns because they sell on multiplayer

I'm glad I only rented WH40k: Space Marine instead of buying it, because the average multiplayer is apparently where the main game is. The campaign is bloody amazing, especially compared to the rather simplistic multiplayer, but it only kept me busy for less than a week before I'd beaten the entire thing and collected all the audio logs

Matchmaking is the only option

Look, if there's no Capture the Flag going on right now, it only takes me a second to see that. I don't want to wait around hoping for a particular game mode or map or player count, only to have the computer tell me half an hour later "NO GAMES FOUND, EXPAND SEARCH OPTIONS?". I never have a problem finding a game in games that have server lists, but matchmaking always ends in me giving up and playing some other game.

[CognitiveDissonance]

A WILD DOUBLE POST APPEARS! What do you do?

[CognitiveDissonance]

Your taste in video games is wrong
If you play video games that are not tough as nails, your a 5 year old. If you appreciate the graphics of a game for a split second, your an uneducated moron. Cover-based shooter? Go back to pre-school etc. For some reason, playing certain types of games suggests you are of abnormally low intelligence, and/or very young.

Particularly in regards to game-graphics for me (as someone who is interested in both graphics programming, and 3d modelling). Where its just silly simple dumb little "shinies" for silly simple dumb little people (the irony being that literal shinyness in computer graphics is not exactly simple).

Your playing it wrong
When your playing the game "incorrectly", ie your having fun "wrongly" or some such. Damnit, if I want to make an army of villagers, or kill the boss with a knife, I will. And I will enjoy doing it.

Your not playing like God and "Winning is everything")

"You stuped n00b moron, your farm setup is unoptimal. You will cost us the game, damn you *insert further abuse about an incorrect villager-to-soldier ratio*". It seems endemic in DOTA-like games, where suboptimal gameplay leads to a torrent of abuse and seemingly genuine displays of hatred.

This seems like it has little to do with games and everything to do with players.

Don't hate the player, hate the game? 

Except that sort of type advantage is the bread-and-butter of RTS play, as far as unit strengths and weaknesses go. By and large they make sense, and sometimes there isn't a better way to work the (dis)advantage into gameplay mechanics. Spearmen do well against cavalry in games for the same reasons as in real life, even if the advantage can't be expressed with the same level of complexity. In this case, the damage bonus vs. cavalry exists because the game doesn't model cavalry charges and the way organized units of spearmen can shatter them. In fact, the sort of decision-making you see behind build choices in RTS games is remarkably similar to real life battle planning.


On a personal note, it's hardly boring. The web of interactions between unit types is what creates the challenge; if you can't just spam a "best" unit, you have to quickly act and react to the unit mix of your enemies, creating a continually shifting unit composition on every side. A RTS without this sort of balance is going to be boring, because it will take very little time for players to find an ideal build.

It's an issue of soft counter vs hard counter. A Soft Counter is generally the better choice in every case, and is a unit that is good but better vs a specific target. IE in Civilization series, the spearman always gets a bonus vs cavalry. The spearman is still a valid early game defense and attack unit. Another good example is Warcraft 2, where Destroyers (small water ships) were a direct counter to air units, but were still an effective all-purpose water unit.

EDIT: Another good example is an old game, Space Empires III. There, you had the Phased Beam weaponry that would bypass regular shields. If the enemy had armor or specialized shields to defend, it was still an effective weapon. Not as good as some other options, but still very relevant.

A Hard Counter is a unit that is only really effective (and cost effective) versus its designated target. The more this happens, the less fun the unit is. The worst example I can think of is Empire Earth 2 - there were literally about 3-4 classes of units locked in a complex R/P/S web. The units would do extremely well versus their designated target, but be relatively lackluster against everything else. All the units were that way. The game then became more of spamming units and counter-units than combined arms and tactics. Which was extremely unfun to me in an otherwise amazing game :-/

Another good example is Warcraft 3. Siege Weaponry in original game was extremely niche, and rarely used. The FT expansion adjusted how the damage type was used, and the unit became much more commonly used in armies.

In general, hard counters should only ever be an answer to a specific niche unit, and such niche units shouldn't neccessarily exist. There is a lot of writing about this on the 'net.

A good example of how hard counters should not work is Age of Empires (original). Siege Weaponry was king, and you could simply spam ballistae or catapults. Technically, cavalry was a counter but you HAD to build cavalry. If not for that counter, there would be no case for not nerfing the siege weaponry.

[Glloyd]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Got a little bit of a double post going on up there. Just a heads up.

Experience the world of [franchise] as this random nobody!

When was the last time we had a Star Wars game where a main character from the films was the player character? Other than the most recent Lego Star Wars, I'm hard pressed to think of any. We've had some great games with other people, like KOTOR and Jedi Knight, but after twenty to thirty years you have to wonder what Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia have been up to.

That is actually the opposite of one of my pet peeves, where the player is the "chosen one" and is the only one who can save the world/galaxy/whatever. Why can't I just be a random nobody?

I agree. I want to be a random nobody, in the sense that, when I die, the world doesn't end. I don't want to be the center of the universe, the only one who can stop the (insert overgeneralized enemy here). I just want to be some loser, some frontline soldier who isn't an all powerful bulletproof god. But not in a Battlefield/front way. Which is why I think an in depth World War One game, that feels like you're playing "All's Quiet On the Western Front" would be the pinnacle of gaming. You die? It's not the end of the war. But now you have to continue to play as you emotionally tormented squadmate who has horrific nightmares of your death... until he dies. Then looks like your stuck playing as that young private that just showed up. Welcome to hell son.

Actually, that's a gaming pet peeve of mine too.

No Good, Meaningful First Person World War One Games

Exactly what it says on the tin. Actually, to add to that,

No Good, Meaningful First Person Shooters With A War Setting

Oh no, Nazi's/Russians/Japs/Viet Cong/TERRORISTS. ERMAGERD. AMERICA MUST DESTROY THEM ALL. Cue American murderboner. I don't want that. I want a meaningful first person shooter. Something like the Brothers in Arms series, but with no plot armor, less killing (by you) and better writing.