Print

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

[Neonivek]

Ok here is one...

Early Access Defenders

Before you ask "Why is that a Pet Peave?" well because a lot like one of my earlier peaves. Seeing this just somehow instantly makes me like the game less. Just this sort of baseless defense of a game because it sold itself early.

If a game sells itself on the basis of being early access then it is a feature... if it is a feature then it can be criticized. If Early Access could be refunded before the game went to full version then yes... it would be silly to criticize early access.

Nothing tells you to jump ship faster then knowing that the people developing the game are being given a blank check with no accountability because their fans are enamored.

and yes the community surrounding a game is important to a game.

Overly apologetic Community that hypes like crazy

Basically the same thing. Nothing bugs me more then seeing a community that will just quash any attempt at criticism and hype a game constantly to unrealistic degrees. Why? because I've fallen for this before...

In fact I've fallen for this so many times that now whenever I see this I just have an outright rejection based instinct. To the extent where I have a pile of things I KNOW are good, but I can't get around to doing them because of this irrationality created by experience.

Seriously gamers, level headed analysis and admittance to possible flaws does not diminish either the greatness of a game NOR does it mean you are insulting it. There is a reason why I blame Spore on the community and not on Maxis who did everything in their power to inform the community other then outright do a Q and A telling everyone this (Ohh wait they DID do a Q and A... where they outright said what they had and didn't have.... and had accurate gameplay demos until the day it released). The community just did everything in its power to hold onto its hype. I actually knew exactly what Spore was before I even played it and other then the Civilization phase being... not very good (I thought there would be a BIT more to it) it was all there. In spite first video being contradicted constantly. (also yeah once again... it has been WAY too long for me to fish for those videos...)

LOOK AT THIS COOL FEATURE! that... is the least great version of it as possible... not that we will tell you.

I have this methodology when looking at videogame features and honestly it will serve you well.

Anytime a game tells you a feature imagine it in its least impressive form. So are there hundreds of hours of gameplay? Expect long bouts of endless grinding and stretched out gameplay that is rather tedious. Dozens of different endings? Minor tacked on differences. Moral choices? Expect black and white binary decisions with clear "advantage versus disadvantage" aspects. Romance? Expect stilted romance and quick meaningless sex scenes.

Unless you SEE that feature being that good. Just always assume it is the least impressive way to do it.

I am actually really tired of this. Why is this a pet peave? Because honestly who here is even affected by blurbs and "features lists" anymore? Everyone expects them to be underwhelming or inaccurate.

It still bugs me... deeply.

Games with no in game screen shots

SERIOUSLY!?! How am I supposed to get a good idea of what the game is without actually seeing a shot of the game. Why in the world do you think I am interested in your pre-rendered garbage when I am trying to get a good idea of how the game is played, looks, or what have you.

Seriously get that interface in there. Show me a picture that gives me a good idea of what I am going to be doing. AHHH!

The Burley Joking Crazy Killing Guy Team Member / Main character

Finally one that is a pet peeve but not a "objectively bad one".

I just flat out don't like the murderous psychopath character who loves shooting or killing people. I RARELY ever like them or their character.

Worse when they are mandatory characters for your team where you just sit there and wonder "Why the HECK am I even allowing him on my team?"

Press Good To Win

In games with moral choices I am often bugged by how much they often make "good" the better option... and obviously so.

Unions are EVIL!!!

Whoa you demanded more money because a mission was hard? Wow, you must be ONE evil dude!

What? You told them you don't need any reward? Wow you must be a saint. Thank goodness that millionaire really could use that cash and the fact that you are ingratiating yourself to the millionaire for SURE wasn't your intention.

Moral Decisions that are logical conundrums

Seriously if a Moral Choice is more of a logical choice... why are you making it a moral choice?

Mind you I don't mean presenting a logical choice as a moral one and allowing it to flow organically.

I mean where you have to make a decision to... lets say... increase taxes to stop highwaymen... Well raising taxes are evil so the game will treat this like you did some terrible thing!

SATANICALLY DELICIOUS!

Will we ever get a game where you become evil in a way where you are not just Captain Puppy Kicker the psychotic murderer?

[Niveras]

Games with no in game screen shots

SERIOUSLY!?! How am I supposed to get a good idea of what the game is without actually seeing a shot of the game. Why in the world do you think I am interested in your pre-rendered garbage when I am trying to get a good idea of how the game is played, looks, or what have you.

Seriously get that interface in there. Show me a picture that gives me a good idea of what I am going to be doing. AHHH!

There's an extension of this that I have with Steam as well. A lot of games on steam only have gameplay screenshots and cinematic trailers, not gameplay videos. That's pretty unacceptable to me. Shouldn't have to rely on youtube or other third (fourth? That is, outside of what the dev uploaded to the vendor) party sources for gameplay videos, not unless I'm buying the thing in a physical store.

[Draxis]

SATANICALLY DELICIOUS!

Will we ever get a game where you become evil in a way where you are not just Captain Puppy Kicker the psychotic murderer?

Shadow of the Colossus?  Iji?  Most empire-builders?  XCOM tries too, but not very well.

[Rolan7]

Payday started pretty evil and got worse.  Killing civilians is penalized, but it became basically necessary for completing certain missions stealthily - which is typically faster and easier than fighting off the cops.  In the live action videos they talk about stealing for freedom and the people, but they don't give away any of the money or clarify why the government is bad. 

In the first game I imagined that the US developed cloning technology and became an evil police state, explaining the insane numbers of clone cops.  But Payday 2 fleshed out the setting in a lot of ways without really providing any moral justification for the heists.  In fact one of the missions is stealing a prototype clean energy reactor for an oil company, and another is framing a politician.

Crusader Kings 2 has a lot of potential for evil.  Familicide is often the optimal path (particularly as Islamic or pagan) and a lot of the random decisions reward greed or dishonesty.  Backstabbing allies and claimants is fun and profitable.  And God help your political prisoners if your character has the "cruel" or "impaler" traits...

Used to be you could throw prisoners in the oubliette where they'd soon die, with none of the public outcry of a public execution.  You didn't even have to be cruel in-character.  Or you could move them to house arrest, which basically just gave them a steady chance of escape.  Fortunately the game is designed as a sandbox, so it's not usually much harder to play as a kind person...  Once you're established.  Starting out as a count, you have to do whatever you can to survive and build a legacy.

I still like Far Cry 4's choices.  I think both paths are supposed to suck, you just choose between stagnant traditionalism or corrupting enterprise.

[Neonivek]

Crusader Kings 2 has a lot of potential for evil.

Crusader Kings 2 is more Immoral. Characters can just decide to kill the greatest loves of their lives for no reason other then they just feel like killing that day.

It is actually what killed the game DEAD for me. I expected everyone to be sort of amoral bastards who will stab me in the back if given half the chance, and while it is true they are psychopaths not ambitious.

It is why I always said that Crusader Kings 2 needed to either be more of a strategy game or more of a simulation game for me to enjoy it... since it is neither.

Shadow of the Colossus?  Iji?  Most empire-builders?  XCOM tries too, but not very well

Are you evil in Shadow of the Colossus? or Iji (other then being a demon) or in most empire-builders? or in Xcom?

Doing "evil things" and "being evil" are sort of separate concepts.

[NullForceOmega]

I actually can't recal ever doing anything in X-com (old or new) that I would consider even slightly evil, morally ambiguous yes, but never evil.

[Neonivek]

I actually can't recal ever doing anything in X-com (old or new) that I would consider even slightly evil, morally ambiguous yes, but never evil.

He probably means that you can send your men to their deaths just to complete a mission. Treating them as expendable cannon fodder.

[NullForceOmega]

That's just war, nothing inherently good or evil in it, just poor planning or desperation.

[Draxis]

I actually can't recal ever doing anything in X-com (old or new) that I would consider even slightly evil, morally ambiguous yes, but never evil.

He probably means that you can send your men to their deaths just to complete a mission. Treating them as expendable cannon fodder.

NuCom tries to be all "you're no better than the aliens, losing your humanity, not worth it..." but since as far as you know you're literally fighting for the freedom/survival of humanity, it doesn't work.

[Neonivek]

I actually can't recal ever doing anything in X-com (old or new) that I would consider even slightly evil, morally ambiguous yes, but never evil.

He probably means that you can send your men to their deaths just to complete a mission. Treating them as expendable cannon fodder.

NuCom tries to be all "you're no better than the aliens, losing your humanity, not worth it..." but since as far as you know you're literally fighting for the freedom/survival of humanity, it doesn't work.

No it can definitely work. The issue is that other then just raising that question the game does nothing to really emphasize the loss of humanity. In fact to my knowledge genesoldiers even maxed out look exactly the same as normal soldiers (sands sleeves)

Also it isn't "NuCom" it is NuCom+Expansion.

[Shadowlord]

As for actual videos games they could at least allow crossbow damage to scale with your stats and have a crossbow as a slow reloading high armour piercing/damage ranged weapon. I don't get why people think only bows should scale with strength while you can only put a certain amount of strength into bows before they get overdrawn and lose effectiveness.

Greater strength wouldn't allow you to fire crossbows more powerfully, though. It would enable you to reload more powerful crossbows, except that historically, more powerful crossbows tended to have mechanical loading mechanisms which alleviated the strength problem for loading, so...

[Rolan7]

It's pretty much just "Gosh, this alien technology we're using is crazy.  I wonder what will happen if we win?"  Pretty decent questions considering some of the soldier enhancements.  But nobody on the team suggests "Maybe we ought to use this to rule the planet" or anything like that, they're just nervous about how the world will change once governments get it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm actually disappointed that sawing the soldiers' limbs off and pumping them full of glowing alien nanites doesn't have any consequences whatsoever.  Particularly since the aliens are distributing the stuff on purpose.  Even EXALT isn't corrupted by it, from what I can tell they were already villainous megalomaniacs.

Genemodded soldiers are super buff and have those little connector ports on their skin, but they're humanlike enough to dress in plain clothes for spy missions at least...

[Shadowlord]

Spoiler: Reply about XCom (click to show/hide)

No consequences, eh?

I named a mech-aug Gunther Hermann (and did not give him a skul-gun). He died. CONSEQUENCES!

[NullForceOmega]

That's my point tho', it's just morally ambiguous, not 'evil'.  If I were the commander in charge of such a situation, I'd use every asset at my disposal to win too, hell I'd even use nuclear weapons to knock out hostiles that are too hard for ground teams.  I hated the forced moralization aspect of newcom, listening to Vahlen and the old man drone on and on about the implications of adapting alien technology.  Stop it, there are an undefined number of hostile extra-terrestrial lifeforms in close orbit, with radically advanced technology trying to do 'something' to the human populous.  We.  Will.  Not.  Lose.  Full stop, end of line, do not pass go.  Moralization is for philosophers, soldiers exist to fight.

[Glloyd]

Regarding early access defenders, it's important to note that there are exceptions to the rule and they are shining. Prison Architect, KSP and Space Engineers come to mind. Hell, KSP is even leaving EA soon. While I'm not defending the process as a whole, there are examples to show that it can work.