Gaming Concepts You Absolutely Loathe

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Not sure if it's as much a gaming concept instead of a concept of creation, but I do loathe it very much, so half rounded up to the nearest whole means it probably counts!
Some recent information on Destiny from the horse's mouth provided an insight on their main antagonist, "the darrrrrkness" and why it's so bloody dull, unoriginal and half-baked... essentially because they didn't have an idea on what they wanted the overarching antagonist force to be until like the most recent DLC for the sequel, so went with that dumbass placeholder and booted the game out regardless. Now it's mainly the implication of motive that i hate, as they couldn't have had a story in mind that they wanted to tell at all...no, they wanted a product to sell and to patch in the story later when convenient. No wonder the campaigns were so narratively crap! I openly admit to being legitimately intrigued by the game's plot when it was first marketed, but I was a foolish fool being fooled by people who were content with shitting out hack ideas with only the goal of "long-term user engaaaagement." No respect for their own story, why should I bother too then? Am not exaggerating to say any hint of interest in their future work instantly evaporated upon learning such knowledges. Customers still lapped it up though. That's how dire the expectations of videogame narrative are amongst most consumers!

trunkage:

Thaluikhain:

Mad World:
For example, In Skyrim, I remember leveling to a certain point, and then the enemies are suddenly significantly stronger than me. It's stupid.

Especially when you can level up with your enchanting or blacksmithing. I like using that spell to make iron ore into gold ore (Takes ages) and then making gold rings or necklaces and selling them, but you level up quickly and leveling up is bad that way.

So you gamed the system and got bit. Shouldn't that be a lesson?

I actually only half believe this statement. I get the necessity to provide rules to a game environment but also get annoyed at other rules that restrict me.

I believe in that fully; it was a feature, not a flaw. They knew there was little they could do to prevent players from finding exploits to quickly level skills. Its great because it specifically isn't a restriction. You certainly can use exploits to get your Alchemy up to 100 quickly, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. The standard Drugar in the next dungeon will pound you into mulch, but it IS mulch that used to be AWESOME at Alchemy. It was a system that just strongly suggested a player not "cheat" and take a slower and better roleplayed balanced approach.

I found it funniest when people would go to bleak falls and turbo level their Block skill early on. It led to a game where the leveled up enemies still couldn't kill you through your cranked up block skill, but you couldn't do enough damage to them with your comparatively underleveled offensive skills. "Cheating" made the combat unbearably dull and tedious... very funny to those of us who realized the mistake that player made.

Kyrian007:
I believe in that fully; it was a feature, not a flaw. They knew there was little they could do to prevent players from finding exploits to quickly level skills. Its great because it specifically isn't a restriction. You certainly can use exploits to get your Alchemy up to 100 quickly, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. The standard Drugar in the next dungeon will pound you into mulch, but it IS mulch that used to be AWESOME at Alchemy. It was a system that just strongly suggested a player not "cheat" and take a slower and better roleplayed balanced approach.

Well, I've got nothing against people finding exploits if they want (I use a lot of third party mods), but that wasn't what I was doing. The first town you go to has a blacksmith that encourages you to take up blacksmithing. But if that seems like fun and you do it too much, you've mucked up your character.

Likewise, if you want to go enchanting, if you want to find one of every type of enchantment so you can learn how to do them all yourself (gotta catch them all) you get penalised for it because you're not playing the game properly. Albeit to a much lesser extent because the opportunities for doing that is less than for smithing.

Surely if the game gives you the option of doing those things, if they encourage them as fun things yo do, players aren't doing it wrong if they do that?

Thaluikhain:

Kyrian007:
I believe in that fully; it was a feature, not a flaw. They knew there was little they could do to prevent players from finding exploits to quickly level skills. Its great because it specifically isn't a restriction. You certainly can use exploits to get your Alchemy up to 100 quickly, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. The standard Drugar in the next dungeon will pound you into mulch, but it IS mulch that used to be AWESOME at Alchemy. It was a system that just strongly suggested a player not "cheat" and take a slower and better roleplayed balanced approach.

Well, I've got nothing against people finding exploits if they want (I use a lot of third party mods), but that wasn't what I was doing. The first town you go to has a blacksmith that encourages you to take up blacksmithing. But if that seems like fun and you do it too much, you've mucked up your character.

Likewise, if you want to go enchanting, if you want to find one of every type of enchantment so you can learn how to do them all yourself (gotta catch them all) you get penalised for it because you're not playing the game properly. Albeit to a much lesser extent because the opportunities for doing that is less than for smithing.

Surely if the game gives you the option of doing those things, if they encourage them as fun things yo do, players aren't doing it wrong if they do that?

Yes the problem was that enemies scaled against your level but many of the skills that increase your level don't necessarily increase your combat abilities proportionately. So if you spend time having fun in towns and leveling your non-combat abilities, or if you mix up your fighting style from time to time leading to leveling redundant skills, the enemies become much stronger while your power level remains about the same. It gets to the point, especially at later levels, that players are forced to use exploits such as alchemy/enchanting/blacksmithing loops to create ludicrously powerful equipment just to keep up. Your character should not feel weaker at level 40 than it did at level 1

trunkage:
So you gamed the system and got bit. Shouldn't that be a lesson?

I actually only half believe this statement. I get the necessity to provide rules to a game environment but also get annoyed at other rules that restrict me. Witcher 3 and letting you only gain XP via main missions just frustrated the already terrible exploration experience. "Don't worry about doing side quests. They aren't worth doing." Or New Vegas horseshoe to New Vegas, literally deleting your ability to do much exploration, all for the sake of narrative.

Divinity OS2 making killing everyone almost mandatory to make sure that fights were beatable later on. It's forcing you to become a mass murder or the game is way more difficult. Or the fact that each zone had civilians whose level matched yours. Because, it so makes sense that each zone should have wildly differently skilled civilians. IRL if the last zone decided to attack the first zone, the first zone would no longer exist. Why would the first zone ever exist?

Kyrian007:
I believe in that fully; it was a feature, not a flaw. They knew there was little they could do to prevent players from finding exploits to quickly level skills. Its great because it specifically isn't a restriction. You certainly can use exploits to get your Alchemy up to 100 quickly, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. The standard Drugar in the next dungeon will pound you into mulch, but it IS mulch that used to be AWESOME at Alchemy. It was a system that just strongly suggested a player not "cheat" and take a slower and better roleplayed balanced approach.

I found it funniest when people would go to bleak falls and turbo level their Block skill early on. It led to a game where the leveled up enemies still couldn't kill you through your cranked up block skill, but you couldn't do enough damage to them with your comparatively underleveled offensive skills. "Cheating" made the combat unbearably dull and tedious... very funny to those of us who realized the mistake that player made.

As Thaluikhain already said, there's a difference between an exploit and playing a game. An exploit is that you found that a certain item in your inventory is bugged and totally messes up XP rewards. Level one monsters will give you end game XP (1 xp per kill vs 100,000 xp per kill). You find this item four hours into the game where you're leveled to a point that Level One Monsters die if you sneeze around them. So you stay there and farm. That's an exploit. That's not how the game was made.

Given the multiple iterations of Skyrim, getting XP for blacksmithing and enchanting isn't a bug. If it was, it would have been patched out of the game several iterations ago.

Nor is it something easy to do in the early game. You have to find these caves. You need to kill what's in there. You need to mine. You need to refine and get other materials such as hunting animals for leather. You need to render all those items, and then build.

That's work. That's Honest to Sweet Zombie Jesus Work. You have to go to mine after mine. You have to make sure you don't do anything to interrupt the respawn timer. You can only carry so much or you can't fast travel. And you can't make anyone else do it for you.

How can this ever be considered an exploit? How can this even be considered quick?

And this goes to my actual original point. Do not put in a leveling system if you plan to make it useless to 'always give a challenge'. It's just a tacked on, needless mechanic that doesn't mean anything if you never actually get stronger.

Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Happyninja42:
Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Gameplay and story segregation. Always annoying; especially in survival horror games.

Happyninja42:
Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Gameplay and Story Segregation. Oh god did the 2013 Tomb Raider have issues with this. There's that, the issue with the "Oh, Sorry Mr. Deer I had to kill you to survive" and then kill like 20,000 bad guys and not feeling a thing about it, or Lara being surprisingly good at murder off the bat considering she's supposed to be a college student on a research trip.

Dalisclock:

Happyninja42:
Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Gameplay and Story Segregation. Oh god did the 2013 Tomb Raider have issues with this. There's that, the issue with the "Oh, Sorry Mr. Deer I had to kill you to survive" and then kill like 20,000 bad guys and not feeling a thing about it, or Lara being surprisingly good at murder off the bat considering she's supposed to be a college student on a research trip.

Not to mention when Lara is complaining about killing people in this game I'm playing because it's about killing people. After the wolf cave, when you reach the next group of cultists, I was thinking about how cool it'd be to shoot that guy in the head with an arrow before he sees me, when Lara yells out to them that they don't have to fight. Get with the program.

OTOH, that does mean that that bit where she's part of a long gunfight just before everything catches fire and she starts yelling out that she's going to kill people is satisfying, but mostly in a "it's so good when she stops whining" sort of way.

Dalisclock:

Happyninja42:
Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Gameplay and Story Segregation. Oh god did the 2013 Tomb Raider have issues with this. There's that, the issue with the "Oh, Sorry Mr. Deer I had to kill you to survive" and then kill like 20,000 bad guys and not feeling a thing about it, or Lara being surprisingly good at murder off the bat considering she's supposed to be a college student on a research trip.

Actually, I'm ok with that part.

In real life, the deer did nothing to me. It could easily become a friend. But my need for substance and the easy bounty of a deer will keep me alive.

The bad guys are choosing to harm me and/or kill me for money. Why should I have pity or remorse?

What's that, a choose your own adventure style game you say? One with multiple ways to solve encounters? Lots of fun weapons, cool gadgets and awesome powers?

Wait... You have to play stealth to get the good ending AND you're forced into a pacifist run the whole game for an achievement?

image

Jokes aside, this really frustrated me with the dishonoured games and to a lesser extent the Deus Ex reboot games (HR and MD) i'm sure i can think of others too, but these were really egregious and got in the way of otherwise fantastic games that i love.

Yes, i know i can play missions like a psycho if i want. But that's not the point. I don't like *feeling* like i've been punished for how i want to play, no matter how arbitrary it may seem.

Silent Protagonist:
Yes the problem was that enemies scaled against your level but many of the skills that increase your level don't necessarily increase your combat abilities proportionately. So if you spend time having fun in towns and leveling your non-combat abilities, or if you mix up your fighting style from time to time leading to leveling redundant skills, the enemies become much stronger while your power level remains about the same. It gets to the point, especially at later levels, that players are forced to use exploits such as alchemy/enchanting/blacksmithing loops to create ludicrously powerful equipment just to keep up. Your character should not feel weaker at level 40 than it did at level 1

I still don't see that as a problem, but rather a feature. The idea was to get away from the common practice of "creating a character." Just getting the levels up before you go out and play the game. Skyrim rather encouraged a system closer to "evolving a character" just playing the game the way you want and having those skills you are using naturally get better as you progress. To me it makes more sense to get better at lockpicking by picking locks rather than suddenly getting better at lockpicking because you killed your 35th wolf. The more common way to make a character "How do I make a sneaky character?" Well in character creation you max your dexterity and put your points in sneak. Ask the same question about Skyrim and the answer is, use a sneaky playstyle. What it punished, is people who were playing with the "old" RPG "create a character" mindset. You just can't approach it that way and expect to walk away with a good experience.

ObsidianJones:
As Thaluikhain already said, there's a difference between an exploit and playing a game. An exploit is that you found that a certain item in your inventory is bugged and totally messes up XP rewards. Level one monsters will give you end game XP (1 xp per kill vs 100,000 xp per kill). You find this item four hours into the game where you're leveled to a point that Level One Monsters die if you sneeze around them. So you stay there and farm. That's an exploit. That's not how the game was made.

Given the multiple iterations of Skyrim, getting XP for blacksmithing and enchanting isn't a bug. If it was, it would have been patched out of the game several iterations ago.

Nor is it something easy to do in the early game. You have to find these caves. You need to kill what's in there. You need to mine. You need to refine and get other materials such as hunting animals for leather. You need to render all those items, and then build.

That's work. That's Honest to Sweet Zombie Jesus Work. You have to go to mine after mine. You have to make sure you don't do anything to interrupt the respawn timer. You can only carry so much or you can't fast travel. And you can't make anyone else do it for you.

How can this ever be considered an exploit? How can this even be considered quick?

That really isn't quick... that's the right way to do it. Going to mine after mine you have to use combat (or sneak) to get ore or (or or ha ha) money to buy the materials... leveling sneak, combat, speech (for mercantile.) That's evolving a character, creating that right balance. The Honest to Sweet Zombie Jesus Work way is the right way. The "exploit" that will sink you is like my previous example, turbocharging block by going to the first dungeon and letting a level 1 drugar hit your shield thousands of time until you Max your block. Or command consoling your inventory with infinite amounts of iron and making daggers until you Max your blacksmithing. You don't even have to cheat to turbolevel Alchemy, just collect the right ingredients which are available in abundance and are cheap and spend an hour or so cranking out potions. There's tutorials on how to do it, or frankly how to turbolevel any skill really. But use any of them and you do risk screwing up your character. And to me, that "punishment" is totally by design and I approve.

The example of a gaming concept I loathe is something like rubber-banding in racing or sports games. I don't want games to be close. I don't want cheap 3-pointers falling just because I'm up by double digits. If I'm doing badly in a race I don't want the drivers waiting around the next corner for me to catch up for the exciting finish. If I'm losing, I want a comeback to be because I'm awesome at the game... not because the game is HELPING me make the comeback.

Hunger, thirst, etc.

I can appreciate the idea - needing to scavenge supplies for your own survival, but most of the time, all it feels like is babysitting a bunch of extra bars that bottom out too quickly.

A lot of times, it feels like you need to eat a full 3-course meal every 10 minutes, otherwise you will drop dead in the streets.

Dalisclock:

Happyninja42:
Not sure if this would be a "mechanic", though it might qualify under Forced Cutscenes or something, but I remember playing that first Tomb Raider reboot game, and being really annoyed with one point in the game and what happened.

Basically you see a parachute when at the safe point with friends, and you go running off to try and save the person (presumably a pilot), before the badguys get to him. So you run off, and I'm heading that way like a good little hero. I get to the spot, which is up one level from where I was at the time, up a simple ramp. I climb up the ramp, and I see a badguy with a shield, with his back to me, advancing on the pilot, who is injured. So I get ready to blast him to save the guy, and the game instead, takes away control, and shows me a cutscene of Lara just...standing there...WATCHING the badguy approach the pilot. And just...watches him gun down the injured man. And I'm yelling at my monitor "SHOOT HIM!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!?"

So yeah, that was an annoying thing that I dislike in games.

Gameplay and Story Segregation. Oh god did the 2013 Tomb Raider have issues with this. There's that, the issue with the "Oh, Sorry Mr. Deer I had to kill you to survive" and then kill like 20,000 bad guys and not feeling a thing about it, or Lara being surprisingly good at murder off the bat considering she's supposed to be a college student on a research trip.

Thaluikhain:

Gameplay and Story Segregation. Oh god did the 2013 Tomb Raider have issues with this. There's that, the issue with the "Oh, Sorry Mr. Deer I had to kill you to survive" and then kill like 20,000 bad guys and not feeling a thing about it, or Lara being surprisingly good at murder off the bat considering she's supposed to be a college student on a research trip.

I wouldn't have minded that much, if the game had taken time to make it more understandable why she didn't react. But I had already encountered those shield enemies by that point in the game, AND I was literally only like 10 feet behind the shield guy, with a clear, open view of his back, and he wasn't aware I was there. There was no reason for the refusal to attack. If they had given the badguy some dialogue, implying he was trying to help the person, perhaps kneeling down by him, and checking him, before quickly shoving a shiv in him, that would be at least something. Or if Lara had stopped for the cutscene, clearly too far away from the situation to help, perhaps separated by a too large gap or something, but she was close enough to see what was going on. I mean, ANYTHING would've been better.

Too be fair though, this is hardly a problem exclusive to that Tomb Raider game. But man was it glaringly obvious in that one.

Gralian:
What's that, a choose your own adventure style game you say? One with multiple ways to solve encounters? Lots of fun weapons, cool gadgets and awesome powers?

Wait... You have to play stealth to get the good ending AND you're forced into a pacifist run the whole game for an achievement?

Jokes aside, this really frustrated me with the dishonoured games and to a lesser extent the Deus Ex reboot games (HR and MD) i'm sure i can think of others too, but these were really egregious and got in the way of otherwise fantastic games that i love.

Yes, i know i can play missions like a psycho if i want. But that's not the point. I don't like *feeling* like i've been punished for how i want to play, no matter how arbitrary it may seem.

I don't really see the problem here? First off, with Dishonored, you can still kill people and get the "good" ending. You just have to not be, as you put it, a psycho murderhobo. And I don't just mean the main targets, you can also kill random people up to a point and still get Low Chaos. I've done it. I think it's fairly accurate really, I mean in real life, when there is a known killer on the loose, the local community does freak out a great deal. The level of panic escalates heavily. So to me, it makes sense, that reports of a masked Queen Killer, going around through the sewers, summoning hordes of rats to devour his foes, and killing everyone he meets. I mean..yeah? Why wouldn't that cause the people to freak out and go into worse situations and choices?

Now Deus Ex: Human Revolution, yeah I will agree they were a little clunky with the implementation of the "I didn't kill anyone" morality in that final cutscene, depending on which choice you picked in the final bit. I don't remember such a thing in Mankind Divided? But honestly that game sadly fell out of my memory pretty quick after playing it.

As to the achievement problem? Again, I'm not sure what the issue is there? All achievements require you to play a specific way to accomplish them, when the achievement is, by design, referring to a playstyle. To get the pacifist achievement, of course you can't kill anyone. So I don't see why that's a big issue? It's just a challenge for those who want to try it. All of those are individual though, as I recall. For example you don't have to do a stealth run to do the pacifist run. There are plenty of tools that let you be fairly open and still accomplish it. You won't get the Ghost achievement sure, but you can do that on a kill run. In fact it's easier on a kill run, as you only have on objective in that case. Don't get seen.

Happyninja42:

Gralian:
What's that, a choose your own adventure style game you say? One with multiple ways to solve encounters? Lots of fun weapons, cool gadgets and awesome powers?

Wait... You have to play stealth to get the good ending AND you're forced into a pacifist run the whole game for an achievement?

Jokes aside, this really frustrated me with the dishonoured games and to a lesser extent the Deus Ex reboot games (HR and MD) i'm sure i can think of others too, but these were really egregious and got in the way of otherwise fantastic games that i love.

Yes, i know i can play missions like a psycho if i want. But that's not the point. I don't like *feeling* like i've been punished for how i want to play, no matter how arbitrary it may seem.

I don't really see the problem here? First off, with Dishonored, you can still kill people and get the "good" ending. You just have to not be, as you put it, a psycho murderhobo. And I don't just mean the main targets, you can also kill random people up to a point and still get Low Chaos. I've done it. I think it's fairly accurate really, I mean in real life, when there is a known killer on the loose, the local community does freak out a great deal. The level of panic escalates heavily. So to me, it makes sense, that reports of a masked Queen Killer, going around through the sewers, summoning hordes of rats to devour his foes, and killing everyone he meets. I mean..yeah? Why wouldn't that cause the people to freak out and go into worse situations and choices?

Now Deus Ex: Human Revolution, yeah I will agree they were a little clunky with the implementation of the "I didn't kill anyone" morality in that final cutscene, depending on which choice you picked in the final bit. I don't remember such a thing in Mankind Divided? But honestly that game sadly fell out of my memory pretty quick after playing it.

As to the achievement problem? Again, I'm not sure what the issue is there? All achievements require you to play a specific way to accomplish them, when the achievement is, by design, referring to a playstyle. To get the pacifist achievement, of course you can't kill anyone. So I don't see why that's a big issue? It's just a challenge for those who want to try it. All of those are individual though, as I recall. For example you don't have to do a stealth run to do the pacifist run. There are plenty of tools that let you be fairly open and still accomplish it. You won't get the Ghost achievement sure, but you can do that on a kill run. In fact it's easier on a kill run, as you only have on objective in that case. Don't get seen.

To clarify, i always try to get 100% achievements / trophies etc in a game before i move onto a new one. I guess what frustrates me is when a game touts lots of really interesting ways to murderize people (or to use neat powers, like in Dishonoured) but then requires you to go the whole game without touching any of it. For example, Dishonoured had an achievement where you beat the game only using "Blink" and nothing else. Along with a pacifist achievemnt. Deus Ex did something similar, no kill achievement - with that game though, it felt frustrating that you felt railroaded into having to play like a hippy purely because the XP reward was so much higher for conking everyone out on the noggin rather than using your badass armblades or that nifty silenced pistol you've spent the whole game modifying.

Because these games are lengthy experiences, i find it hard to justify playing through the way i feel "required" to by the developer and then play through it again how i actually want to play it.

I completely accept that this is all my own problem though. I don't expect anyone or many to really understand, but this was a thread about what winds you personally up.

Gralian:

To clarify, i always try to get 100% achievements / trophies etc in a game before i move onto a new one. I guess what frustrates me is when a game touts lots of really interesting ways to murderize people (or to use neat powers, like in Dishonoured) but then requires you to go the whole game without touching any of it. For example, Dishonoured had an achievement where you beat the game only using "Blink" and nothing else. Along with a pacifist achievemnt. Deus Ex did something similar, no kill achievement - with that game though, it felt frustrating that you felt railroaded into having to play like a hippy purely because the XP reward was so much higher for conking everyone out on the noggin rather than using your badass armblades or that nifty silenced pistol you've spent the whole game modifying.

Because these games are lengthy experiences, i find it hard to justify playing through the way i feel "required" to by the developer and then play through it again how i actually want to play it.

I completely accept that this is all my own problem though. I don't expect anyone or many to really understand, but this was a thread about what winds you personally up.

I think my confusion is that I don't see why that one specific achievement criteria, is so much more egregious than say ones that have equally difficult goals like "Kill 100 enemies without taking any damage" or "Don't lose any minions on this escort mission." Achievements by design, are meant to be challenging, and a pacifist related achievement, by it's very nature, requires you to not, as you put it, play like a psychopath.

Now I do agree that Deus Ex was kind of janky with it's XP system, given the bonus you get for non-lethal, but I think that's because you were going to need a lot more "tools" in your kit to have a passive run, aside from combat. Because someone who isn't worried about pacifist achievements, doesn't really need things like hacking or the social skills, so the XP can be more streamlined without really hindering their progress. Because I remember all of the story vital locks/computers, were pretty much 100% Level 1 difficulty, specifically so someone who was a combat monkey, and didn't invest in the support skills, could still progress the story. But the panels that allowed you to say, bypass the combat entirely, or get the information you needed to social your way out of a fight, those were usually gated behind the higher difficulty locks, thus needing more XP to get them Or at least that was my understanding of it. It might be just simply off via the math of it, and it's still a problem for a combat build, but I never really play that route, so I don't know from personal experience.

As to the Dishonored challenge about only using blink. I remember thinking that one was going to be tricky, but it turned out it really wasn't. I was genuinely surprised how easy it was to still go through that game with just that power at the default level. Partly because you don't have to bother with the side stuff, like trying to go through some crazy puzzle/obstacle course, because the only reward at the end is a Bone Charm, which you don't need because you aren't buying powers. xD It was surprisingly one of the easier runs I ever did of that game, and I even pacifisted with ghost, but that was mostly just because that's how I default to.

I actually loved that one, because of the theme of it. That you were basically refusing to make a deal with the literal devil for power to get revenge. That you could do it without mystic help (beyond the minimum required by the game). It was one of the easier runs I did, but also the most personally satisfying. "I don't need all your fancy powers Outsider. So keep your cryptic morality debates to yourself" :P

votemarvel:
Fast travel annoys me. Not in itself but that developers don't seem to realise that if there was more to do in the world or what was there was in a smaller space, then they wouldn't need to put in a fast travel system in order to stop people getting bored travelling across that world.

I share your frustration, its been bugging me lately. For some reason Borderland's 3 continues including cars even though they add nothing to the game. They added more vehicles and actual ways to customize their handling, damage and stats but you don't even use them because they are just there to get you from point to point. The maps also aren't designed for them as you get snagged on environmental clutter constantly. Its a waste of resources that could have been spent on other parts of the game that need it. And this type of design is so standard in AAA games its maddening. Open world is the gaming equivalent of putting "natural flavors" on your cereal box.

Games about grinding different combinations of skill together that don't tell you the skill tree in advance. I just finished Fire Emblem: Awakening and am currently playing Bravely Default and neither one tells you what you will unlock by leveling up a class. The whole fun is taking a character along an upgrade path to give them the skills they need to kick butt. However, your only options are to grind out every class to see what they all do and completely ruin the game by over leveling or look it up online, which always kind of sucks and you end up stumbling across the completely broken strats someone else has came up with to break the game. FE: Awakening was especially bad with the whole children inheritance system that I don't think was actually ever explained in the game at all.

All in all I'm not sure why those two games seemed to be so well regarded at the time. I'm completely underwhelmed by both.

"Anything goes" crafting, which is to say "Alchemy". I think the first time I encountered this was with Rikku's "Mix" ability in Final Fantasy X. You can combine any two stockable items into a new item. To explain why I hate this, let's look at the unique combinations for a moment.

...And that was a non-exhaustive list because I'm not about to count out the number of possible combinations for the remaining 40 unique results just to make a point.

The 'fun' part, of course, is that while each permutation of items has a single specific result, the game doesn't tell you what you're getting when you make that permutation. So if you don't have notes handy, you don't know if your mix is going to result in 5 hits of low ice damage, remove 15/16 of the foes' current hp, speed up the rate at which your overdrive fills up, or revives your dead party members (which you might not have) with full health. And it's just way too much to keep track of. Just on the non-exhaustive above you've got 2,707 permutations for 24 distinct results.

Now to be clear, I don't have a problem with crafting in and of itself. I love me some Teraria, Monster Hunter, Warframe, and Subnautica, and they all lean quite heavily onto their crafting mechanics. What I hate is the "alchemy" trial and error approach, where you're either crafting random items blindly or near-blindly and hoping for a good result or have your finger on a guide to make sure that you're both making the desired item and doing so with the lowest possible opportunity cost.

ObsidianJones:
NPC Auto Leveling: To me, this is one of the single most dumbest design that has ever come out the gaming industry. There is nothing that tells me my time grinding was useless more than NPC Auto-leveling. Why did I spend hours grinding to get enough points to get the Super Nova ability when a Thief in rags that I had difficulty dispatching with my rusty sword doesn't die outright to it?

I agree. I would've been so angry if I'd spent all that time levelling in Might and Magic to get the Armageddon spell, to find the villagers had somehow out-levelled it. (As I recall, and it was a long time ago, they hadn't. I just flattened those bozos.)

Hmmm, not so much a concept as an unintended effect, but when you're playing a turn based strategy game and you're close to winning, you tend to end up with a zillion units all wanting orders each turn, and your new stuff is several turns away from being able to get to where the last important stuff is going on. Slows things down a lot and I tend to forget some of what I'd planned to do with my units a few turns back.

I'm playing through Bloodborne. It's amazing that I like it when it has so many things I dislike.

-Bosses so Big that you can not see what they are doing. I get this is an intentional SoulsBorne Tradition. But it doesn't make it less annoying. I simply can not see the attacks and it makes it feel cheap. This leads to a few more complaints.

-Camera going crazy when it doesn't know how to handle your lock-on target's motion. This leads to a lot of unfair deaths. I know the answer is to disengage the lock on when you think something is happening. But I have been right next to a dog creature and seen my blade go through its body several times without damaging it once. Lock-on is essential to make sure you're actually going to hit the target, no matter how you clip through the enemy. But that leads to another thing.

-Lock-on disengaging on its own. You're not even that far away. You rolled out of striking distance and suddenly the lock on is gone. Is this a problem? Yup. For two more reasons!

-Sometimes it's a struggle to lock onto the enemy you wish to fight. There have been plenty of times where I've locked on to an enemy that's neck and neck with the actual foe I want to target. And the lock-on refuses to shift just a foot to the left to get the monster I want to take care of first. It artibarialy shifts when it wants to. And that cost some damage.

-Sometimes the Lock On just won't turn on. Don't feel like I have to explain this one.

But this leads me to my most hated thing of all. Having to deal with other players. Because it leads to (You guessed it) two different outcomes.

I turned on online for the first time to get to a chalice dungeon to try to get an uncanny weapon. Once I got it, I didn't think anything about being online, so I kept playing. I went to the Nightmare Frontier, and I fought my first PvP battle. So, the two options is either this guy was a hacker or he had such tremendous lag that only affected me.

I should state that I'm Level 100 at this point, 40 in skill, 32 in strength, Saw Spear +7 with a damage potential of 321.

I ran up to him and slashed him with my Saw Spear 5 times before he could roll away. The damage bar didn't move. I saw the blood coming out, the character model was stun locked, but no damage. I shot with my rifle, and once again his character displayed that he took damage, but all that happened was 13 points of damage.

Fine, I thought. Lag over. I baited a slash and then rolled behind him. One slash did actual damage. Great, let's get this done.

But in the same flurry of slashes, only the first swing did damage. Even though he was stunlocked for the three other slashes, nothing happened.

And here's the weird part. He healed. So yeah, he took damage for the first swipe. But seemingly took no damage for the rest of the flurry.

However, every hit he bestows onto me is always yielding damage.

Every shot I got on him in midswing doesn't stun. I got 8 slashes in on him without him healing once after that. meanwhile, he gets four slashes into me, doesn't shoot a shot, and somehow stuns me for a visceral kill.

Now the truth of the matter is that either way, it puts me off of the online component. For the same reason I hate all online components: It's always stacked against you. Whether it being just a really bad connection that somehow read all damage done to me perfectly and not him, or it's a hacker which I thought you weren't supposed to find in console games, but apparently this is a thing.

Online gaming means I have to play with people. And people suck.

ObsidianJones:
lock-on
Lock-on
lock on
Lock On

Lock-on is an archaic and obsolete mechanic that really has no point being in modern games. Monster Hunter World has an even more deliberate combat system than Souls games with bigger monsters and there's no lock-on (well, there is, but no one uses it). There's also Dragon's Dogma. Even in spectacle fighters with far more going on, lock-on only has a small handful of uses. From and Rockstar are like the only devs that have lock-on as the default for their controls, which really has no point outside of being an accessibility option nowadays.

ObsidianJones:

But this leads me to my most hated thing of all. Having to deal with other players. Because it leads to (You guessed it) two different outcomes.

[Snip]

Online gaming means I have to play with people. And people suck.

Yeah, honestly one of my biggest peeves with the Soulsborne games. I don't mind the co-op but my experience with the PVP feel like it's designed to fuck me because I'm focused on playing the game and not the meta. It wasn't so bad in Dark Souls and BB because I could just stay hollow or not ring the bell except when I wanted co-op assistance(and take my chances). Dark Souls 2 didn't give you that option because if you were online at all, you could be(and often were) invaded, and I swear, despite the SL system, one of the first invaders I faced was armed with acid and I couldn't damage him at all.

Yeah, I may be an asshole, but I routinely quit out of DS2 and reloaded whenever I had to deal with a human invader, which no doubt frustrated the shit out of the invader(there was one very persistent invader in the sunken city DLC who really, really had it out for me despite/because of this). OTOH, the griefer can suck it.

One of the reasons DS2 was a one and done, because I'm not dealing with that shit again, ever. There are better Dark Souls games to play and replay.

ObsidianJones:
I'm playing through Bloodborne. It's amazing that I like it when it has so many things I dislike.

-Bosses so Big that you can not see what they are doing. I get this is an intentional SoulsBorne Tradition. But it doesn't make it less annoying. I simply can not see the attacks and it makes it feel cheap. This leads to a few more complaints.

-Camera going crazy when it doesn't know how to handle your lock-on target's motion. This leads to a lot of unfair deaths. I know the answer is to disengage the lock on when you think something is happening. But I have been right next to a dog creature and seen my blade go through its body several times without damaging it once. Lock-on is essential to make sure you're actually going to hit the target, no matter how you clip through the enemy. But that leads to another thing.

-Lock-on disengaging on its own. You're not even that far away. You rolled out of striking distance and suddenly the lock on is gone. Is this a problem? Yup. For two more reasons!

-Sometimes it's a struggle to lock onto the enemy you wish to fight. There have been plenty of times where I've locked on to an enemy that's neck and neck with the actual foe I want to target. And the lock-on refuses to shift just a foot to the left to get the monster I want to take care of first. It artibarialy shifts when it wants to. And that cost some damage.

-Sometimes the Lock On just won't turn on. Don't feel like I have to explain this one.

But this leads me to my most hated thing of all. Having to deal with other players. Because it leads to (You guessed it) two different outcomes.

I turned on online for the first time to get to a chalice dungeon to try to get an uncanny weapon. Once I got it, I didn't think anything about being online, so I kept playing. I went to the Nightmare Frontier, and I fought my first PvP battle. So, the two options is either this guy was a hacker or he had such tremendous lag that only affected me.

I should state that I'm Level 100 at this point, 40 in skill, 32 in strength, Saw Spear +7 with a damage potential of 321.

I ran up to him and slashed him with my Saw Spear 5 times before he could roll away. The damage bar didn't move. I saw the blood coming out, the character model was stun locked, but no damage. I shot with my rifle, and once again his character displayed that he took damage, but all that happened was 13 points of damage.

Fine, I thought. Lag over. I baited a slash and then rolled behind him. One slash did actual damage. Great, let's get this done.

But in the same flurry of slashes, only the first swing did damage. Even though he was stunlocked for the three other slashes, nothing happened.

And here's the weird part. He healed. So yeah, he took damage for the first swipe. But seemingly took no damage for the rest of the flurry.

However, every hit he bestows onto me is always yielding damage.

Every shot I got on him in midswing doesn't stun. I got 8 slashes in on him without him healing once after that. meanwhile, he gets four slashes into me, doesn't shoot a shot, and somehow stuns me for a visceral kill.

Now the truth of the matter is that either way, it puts me off of the online component. For the same reason I hate all online components: It's always stacked against you. Whether it being just a really bad connection that somehow read all damage done to me perfectly and not him, or it's a hacker which I thought you weren't supposed to find in console games, but apparently this is a thing.

Online gaming means I have to play with people. And people suck.

Yeah, there are several games I can think of where the lock-on sucks or does not help much.

Phoenixmgs:

ObsidianJones:
lock-on
Lock-on
lock on
Lock On

Lock-on is an archaic and obsolete mechanic that really has no point being in modern games. Monster Hunter World has an even more deliberate combat system than Souls games with bigger monsters and there's no lock-on (well, there is, but no one uses it). There's also Dragon's Dogma. Even in spectacle fighters with far more going on, lock-on only has a small handful of uses. From and Rockstar are like the only devs that have lock-on as the default for their controls, which really has no point outside of being an accessibility option nowadays.

I disagree to an extent. Lock-on has its uses in modern gaming, but depends on how well its implemented. Even if the lock-on is good or not, as long as the player is given the option to turn it off, than it's usually not a problem. DMC4 had the better uses of lock-on, because it's one of the few games that gives you options on how you want your lock-on to function.

Pointless or lazy backtracking where the environments don't change. There is no reason for this be here anymore.

Lack of restart checkpoint (Bayonetta 2), or the game punishes you for restarting a checkpoint (DmC & DMC5). After the awesomeness of Metal Gear Rising's restart checkpoint, all action games of this nature should have a restart option without penalty. Especially if you're a perfectionist.

Putting multiplayer achievements in single player games. Certain achievements/trophies are impossible to get if the servers down, no ones playing the multiplayer, or the games wasn't that good. There are many a 360/PS3 games that suffer from this. So if you're a competitionists, you are screwed trying to play these games many years later down the road. Nobody has learned from this, and I highly doubt it will stop.

RPGs where party members don't get xp when they are knocked out at the end of a battle. Bravely Default again. Whoops the boss did a OHKO on your mage just before your valkyrie landed the killing blow and you don't get a chance to rez, no part of the huge pile of xp for them unless you want to reset and hope for better luck next time.

Turn-based strategy that only allows four party members in battle, eventhough this is a fight to the death and the rest of your party is waiting backstage with nothing to stop them from joining in. I'd be okay with this if the same were true for your opponent, but it's not. They can have five or six dudes on the field in total, while you're stuck with only four. Can someone answer me why JRPGs still do this shit? I'm also looking at you, Persona 5.

This does not include games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age: Inquisition (not the same genre, but a similar party set-up), where the other members of your party are either back on the ship or at the HQ. Final Fantasy 10 also gets a pass since you can swap party members in and out whenever you want with no repercussions. One of the reasons it's the best JRPG out there.

Drathnoxis:
RPGs where party members don't get xp when they are knocked out at the end of a battle. Bravely Default again. Whoops the boss did a OHKO on your mage just before your valkyrie landed the killing blow and you don't get a chance to rez, no part of the huge pile of xp for them unless you want to reset and hope for better luck next time.

Oh, yeah, that's a rough one. "Yeah, you participated in like 90% of the battle but were KO at the end, NO EXP for you!" like it doesn't matter.

Double ouch in games that don't use leaked experience, again, like OCTOPATH.

Casual Shinji:
Turn-based strategy that only allows four party members in battle, eventhough this is a fight to the death and the rest of your party is waiting backstage with nothing to stop them from joining in. I'd be okay with this if the same were true for your opponent, but it's not. They can have five or six dudes on the field in total, while you're stuck with only four. Can someone answer me why JRPGs still do this shit? I'm also looking at you, Persona 5.

This does not include games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age: Inquisition (not the same genre, but a similar party set-up), where the other members of your party are either back on the ship or at the HQ. Final Fantasy 10 also gets a pass since you can swap party members in and out whenever you want with no repercussions. One of the reasons it's the best JRPG out there.

I know some games do have a decent justification. Chrono Trigger includes a plot point where only 3 people can go through the portal(or sit in the epoch) at a time thus limiting your party to 3. Final Fantasy 4 actually let you have 5 people at a time and usually had some reason the others weren't with you(so there was no switching out to be had), but this did have the downside of your party members at any given time were totally dependent on plot progression and people would take off/join with little or no warning at all(often taking all the good gear with them).

Wings012:
I've played visual novels where a seemingly innocent choice between slacking off in bed or going out for a walk can result in the protagonist getting killed or reality completely warping, cause the different routes completely contradict one another in terms of how reality works.

Sounds like the Butterfly Effect in action.

Mad World:
Anyway, another one for me is weapon and/or armour degradation. It's retarded and doesn't belong in games. In the Witcher 3, it's retarded, and I was happy to mod it out. Even in Breath of the Wild, it's unwelcome. And before someone states something like, "Oh, well, you could just go and obtain the best weapons in the game immediately and be overpowered." No, there is an easy workaround for that, which only takes one minute of brainstorming to think up.

Eh, weapon degradation in Deliverance: Kingdom Come wasn't bad at all. You basically just took your sword and found a grindstone and worked on it, and tried not to do something *too* stupid (like drive it edge first into the grindstone at full speed). Durability held out for a decent bit too, once you knew how to handle your sword.

Kyrian007:
You certainly can use exploits to get your Alchemy up to 100 quickly, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. The standard Drugar in the next dungeon will pound you into mulch, but it IS mulch that used to be AWESOME at Alchemy.

To be fair, it's still not hard. Just *use* Alchemy. Make up some Fortify One-Handed and Fortfy Block potions and drink your way into being a legendary swordsman.

Or go full crafter right off the bat - level the crap out of Smithing, Enchanting, and Alchemy, then chug those potions and murder someone with your enchanted (legendary) enhanced weapons and armor.

Gralian:
What's that, a choose your own adventure style game you say? One with multiple ways to solve encounters? Lots of fun weapons, cool gadgets and awesome powers?

Wait... You have to play stealth to get the good ending AND you're forced into a pacifist run the whole game for an achievement?

image

Jokes aside, this really frustrated me with the dishonoured games and to a lesser extent the Deus Ex reboot games (HR and MD) i'm sure i can think of others too, but these were really egregious and got in the way of otherwise fantastic games that i love.

Yes, i know i can play missions like a psycho if i want. But that's not the point. I don't like *feeling* like i've been punished for how i want to play, no matter how arbitrary it may seem.

To be fair, it also had achievements for not using any of the magic besides blink, for getting the high chaos ending, for using every weapon and tool available in a playthrough, etc. You couldn't get all the achievements without doing at least 3 playthroughs because of mutually exclusive achievements.

When the dialogue clearly wants to show one character interrupting another, but there's a glaring second gap between the person stopping mid-sentence and the other character starting their 'interruption.' it's...just...don't. All these modern teraflop cores with a billion quantum space pixels fueling ray-tracing super high-def ultra motion-captured shadows and you idiots still can't make dialogue overlap with any hint of naturality. (Is that not a word? Oh well)
As much shit as one could throw at Sonic adventure 2, they did actually have a lot of overlapping dialogue. Yes, the execution was god-awful, but that's the sort of thing you're supposed to improve upon as we trundle to our pointless masochistic doom!

Neurotic Void Melody:
When the dialogue clearly wants to show one character interrupting another, but there's a glaring second gap between the person stopping mid-sentence and the other character starting their 'interruption.' it's...just...don't. All these modern teraflop cores with a billion quantum space pixels fueling ray-tracing super high-def ultra motion-captured shadows and you idiots still can't make dialogue overlap with any hint of naturality. (Is that not a word? Oh well)
As much shit as one could throw at Sonic adventure 2, they did actually have a lot of overlapping dialogue. Yes, the execution was god-awful, but that's the sort of thing you're supposed to improve upon as we trundle to our pointless masochistic doom!

This made me recall playing Willy Beamish on my Sega CD back in the day. The awe of the [then] new CD-ROM technology connected to my 16-bit gaming system and the majesty of hearing actual spoken dialogue between characters weren't enough to outshine the fuggin' lag during conversations; it was painfully palpable. One character would say something, and it was 2-3 seconds before a reply would come, and that's on TOP of the voices sounding like they were recordings of recordings being played through a cassette player inside of a shoe box. And the skitchy animation as the laser struggled to read the disc was enough to cause seizures. Still, it was a charming little game; never got to finish it, though; a scratch on the disc caused the game to freeze at the exact same point near the end game sequences.

'Pay To Win' mechanics.

As someone above me mentioned, 'We Cannot Go On Without You', mainly in the Persona series. Even the tougher main SMT series ditched it, so why hasn't Persona 5?

Lack of a button to skip cutscenes. This was invented decades ago yet some developers still refuse to include it. They genuinely believe it won't get grating on the 10th watch.

Also seen above, mandatory Dark Souls PvP. I completed the 3rd game recently and actually enjoyed it more than the others... except the handful of times where I had just gotten past another very difficult segment, only to see the Invader message pop up, and know that I could no longer save or recover, and had no other option but to wait for a Level 2409812491 red phantom to come along and rape me. And that even if I did somehow manage to fight them off, they would simply run into a horde of monsters and wait for me to foolishly give chase. They get safe havens, yet I, the 'host' of the world, don't.

There was one time where I was fighting one on the cliffs of Irithyll and they accidentally rolled off to their death which was amusing, but probably my sole PvP victory, and Irithyll actually has an entire section notorious for having lots of invasions.

WhiteFangofWhoa:

Lack of a button to skip cutscenes. This was invented decades ago yet some developers still refuse to include it. They genuinely believe it won't get grating on the 10th watch.

I firmly believe devs who do this should be forced to watch their own cutscenes over and over again on loop until their eyes start bleeding.

And doubly so if it's a 5 minute cutscene before a boss battle. A difficult boss battle. Yes, I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy X.

Personally, I believe all cutscenes should be skippable after the first time as a standard feature(and anytime if the devs are nice). The ability to Pause cutscenes would also be appreciated if the cutscene runs longer then a minute(because bathroom breaks and phone calls happen).

WhiteFangofWhoa:

Also seen above, mandatory Dark Souls PvP. I completed the 3rd game recently and actually enjoyed it more than the others... except the handful of times where I had just gotten past another very difficult segment, only to see the Invader message pop up, and know that I could no longer save or recover, and had no other option but to wait for a Level 2409812491 red phantom to come along and rape me. And that even if I did somehow manage to fight them off, they would simply run into a horde of monsters and wait for me to foolishly give chase. They get safe havens, yet I, the 'host' of the world, don't.

There was one time where I was fighting one on the cliffs of Irithyll and they accidentally rolled off to their death which was amusing, but probably my sole PvP victory, and Irithyll actually has an entire section notorious for having lots of invasions.

I didn't find this so bad in DS1 due to being able to mostly opt out(by staying hollow) but DS2 pissed me off quite a lot by it's "Nope you can't avoid being invaded" and some spots are very invasion prone. I got in the habit of exiting out the game just before an invader got to me to fuck with their griefing asses.

Phoenixmgs:

Lock-on is an archaic and obsolete mechanic that really has no point being in modern games.

The Ace Combat games have a pretty good "point" to having a lock on system.

Casual Shinji:
Final Fantasy 10 also gets a pass since you can swap party members in and out whenever you want with no repercussions. One of the reasons it's the best JRPG out there.

You can unlock the ability to do this in Persona 5.

Dalisclock:

WhiteFangofWhoa:

Also seen above, mandatory Dark Souls PvP. I completed the 3rd game recently and actually enjoyed it more than the others... except the handful of times where I had just gotten past another very difficult segment, only to see the Invader message pop up, and know that I could no longer save or recover, and had no other option but to wait for a Level 2409812491 red phantom to come along and rape me. And that even if I did somehow manage to fight them off, they would simply run into a horde of monsters and wait for me to foolishly give chase. They get safe havens, yet I, the 'host' of the world, don't.

There was one time where I was fighting one on the cliffs of Irithyll and they accidentally rolled off to their death which was amusing, but probably my sole PvP victory, and Irithyll actually has an entire section notorious for having lots of invasions.

I didn't find this so bad in DS1 due to being able to mostly opt out(by staying hollow) but DS2 pissed me off quite a lot by it's "Nope you can't avoid being invaded" and some spots are very invasion prone. I got in the habit of exiting out the game just before an invader got to me to fuck with their griefing asses.

Heheheh... Belfry Luna. XO
Some good demonstrations of Dark Souls 2 PvP (among other things) here:

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here