Game Over Man! Game Over!!!

Littlefoot1616 · **on:** April 20, 2009, 09:46:31 AM

Hey gang!

As with any medium that you effectively engage with, there are gonna be things you like and obviously things you don't like. Thinking about it the other day in convos with other friends, we were discussing what elements, mechanics or logistical factors about video games that we really DIDN'T like. So what about you guys? I'm not talking game TITLES per se, I'm talking about what going into the game. The nuts and bots that really get your gripe. Feel free to express said gripes here (with examples if you so wish):

As for me, I can't stand dodgy cameras! The camera is supposed to be your window into the gaming world and there's nothing worse when your camera is so horribly inresponsive or gets stuck in a position that is of no benefit to you whatsoever! Given examples - ANY THING BY SONIC TEAM! These guys are terrible with camera mechanics and they just can't seem to get it right! There are plenty of examples out there of how cameras should operate but why can't they take a leaf outta their books. Previous installments of Resident Evil were also a pain. I know the whole static camera was supposed to generate a sense of eerieness and atmosphere, but it's bloody annoying when you've got an enemy off screen, your character aims at it but you can't see if you're hitting it, missing it or if it's dead or not. Thankfully they changed that all with RE4 and RE5 with the chasing cam and over-the-shoulder aiming mech.

I've got the first rant...anyone else wanna add anything?

DarkHououmon · **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2009, 09:52:39 AM

I'm not always fond of the moving camera either. Like in Spyro, the camera can go behind the wall you're standing near, so you can't even see Spyro anymore. Heck, when the camera is near any wall, it gets harder and harder to move, so you have to run away from the wall in order to look around.

I have tried to play Resident Evil 4 but the over-the-shoulder was so horrible (in my opinion) that I had to put it down. I like the fixed-camera angle like in Dino Crisis (I assume that's how RE was too). I admit, it took a little while to get used to, but I'll be honest. I would rather have RE4 in fixed-camera than the dreaded over-the-shoulder. No offense.

Sorry if I'm being too harsh on over-the-shoulder, but I can't help but dislike it. I mean, the way that it's often angled, it feels like the character is always obscuring part of the view. In RE4's case, if I remember correctly, the character is obscuring the view to the left of the character, and the aiming, in my opinion, is awkward. What was wrong with a first-person view, fixed-camera, or even something more like Spyro's gameplay mechanics?

Littlefoot1616 · **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2009, 09:58:01 AM

I'll agree with you to an extent DarkHououmon. With your character perched on the extreme left (or right if you played as Sheva in RE5) it did obscure your vision on that side effectively making you blind. That was annoying coz they always seemed to jump you on your blind side! Still, I liked the over-the-shoulder view and effective use of the LAM (laser aiming module) for each gun. LAMs in other games were effectively useless despite being there coz you had a crosshair anyway. But, as I said, not everyone's gonna like every element. That's what this topic's about!

Cheers for your contributions DH

DarkHououmon · **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:02:25 AM

I would have liked a first person view in RE4. It would have been more comfortable and easier to aim. A friend of mine hates first person view because it limits your view to just through the character's "eyes", so-to-speak. But I like it because it, in my opinion, completely eliminates the camera issues found in 3rd person view games. No more getting stuck behind or against an object.

Another thing I don't like about games is delayed reactions, how it seems like it takes longer than normal for your character to react to a situation. For example, in Dino Crisis 2, there have been several occasions where I press a button for the character to shoot, but they don't react quickly enough and they get attacked. It's especially worse than there are multiple dinos in the area (up to 3 at a time). Due to seemingly slow reaction time, it can be difficult to attack one dinosaur and then quickly change to attack another before it attacked you.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:23:19 AM

I'm not very picky, and I'm very patient, so there's really only one thing that I've found in any video game that has really seriously annoyed me. That would be in Spyro: Eternal Night. Yeah, I took a chance in picking up a new Spyro game, and let me just say that the gameplay mechanics are HORRIBLE compared to the originals. Regular enemy attacks do a buttload of damage, after you get hit you're unable to move for a few seconds, and enemies can keep hitting you while you're unable to move. Couple this with the fact that they like to barrage you with sets of five hundred enemies(If I'm exaggerating that number, it's not by much) which you have to fight ALL OVER AGAIN if you die, even if you die on number 499, and also the fact that bosses have OBSCENELY long health bars, and you get an extremely annoying game. I'm all for a challenge, but not a pointless one that takes forever and only wins you more of a really bad story carried along by a horrible performance by Elijah Wood. They could have hired a MUCH more capable unknown, spared us the ear-bleeding and put the money they saved on that brainless venture into some much needed game development.

Well, there's my rant. Sorry if it was unnecessarily passionate

Spyro holds a special place in my heart

DarkHououmon · **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:27:50 AM

I actually preferred the Legend of Spyro mechanics over the originals because they added more challenge. I mean, it was so boring to just flame the enemy once or hit them once and they're down (with bad guys taking a little longer). I liked the idea of having enemies with longer health bars and using more than just my horns and breath to attack with. The main downside, though, is that the fight scenes can get redundant, get old fast.

Still, I felt the gameplay mechanics in LoS were an improvement over the original Spyro games. I'm not overly fond of one-hit kills all the time.

Another note: Spyro was pretty much "dying" before LoS came along. The franchise just couldn't compete with other games that were coming out. LoS did extend the franchise "longevity" so-to-speak, and there's even a movie coming out. So I don't think one should be too harsh on LoS. It did revive the franchise.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:32:08 AM

For me, the originals weren't about combat. They were more focused in accomplishing goals, and exploration. While they weren't the most challenging things in the world, they were fun and gorgeous. Plus, I loved their tone so much more than the new games. There are plenty of games with challenging combat. Spyro was something special, though, something different.

Also: I'm not for reviving franchises just for the sake of reviving them. I'm glad that Spyro has come back because it has made a lot of people very happy, but I myself am of the opinion that they did a very poor job of it.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:38:24 AM

I do like the original games, don't get me wrong. But I like the new games more because of better combat. That's why I originally wanted to play Spyro games in the first place; to fight as a dragon. And combat in the first game was...not what I hoped it would be, to be honest. I was happy when the new Spyro games came out.

I remain mostly neutral though. I can say I prefer LoS over Insomniac Spyro, but I don't hate Insomniac Spyro or anything. I won't go as far as say LoS is better than Insomniac. I'm just saying I prefer the combat system in LoS more than Insomniac, and I also love the story in LoS over the one in Insomniac. I like darker stories.

The only time I didn't like the gameplay mechanics in an LoS game is the third game. Oh sure, you can fly, but it's so hard to land sometimes, and there's restrictions on how high you can fly in certain areas. Also the camera isn't very rotatable, and sometimes gets stuck in one position, such as side or even forward, making it hard to see what else is around you. In other words, unlike in the other Spyro games, including the originals, instead of having the camera behind Spyro and staying there (unless you rotate it), the camera angles in the third LoS game don't always stay behind the character; it can go off on the side or to the front.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:46:27 AM

I guess we were just looking for different things out of the game, then

Personally, I get very tired of dark storylines. They're all well and good, but I see them far too often. The original Spyro's whimsy was like a breath of fresh air for me. And, as I said before, combat wasn't something I expected or particularly desired out of Spyro, though I love a good combat system as much as the next person.

But as long as people enjoy the new games, I'm glad that they're there.

Spartanguy88 · **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:58:22 AM

All that stuff you guys were saying about "over the shoulder" games; I guess the same could be said about Dead Space. It's a good game, but there are times where I may be fighting one space zombie but all of the sudden another one grabs me from behind and starts biting my neck. And I don't even know where where it came from.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:59:09 AM

You know one thing I miss that's absent in the LoS games? The exploration value. I liked the idea of being able to explore a world I am in. You can't do this with LoS; you have to follow a rather linear path, from start to finish. It didn't feel like you were really exploring; you were just following one path.

Another gameplay mechanic in general that I don't like is when the aiming doesn't stay put. An example is in the game Reign of Fire when you play as the human, or car in this case. When you point the turret up to aim at a dragon, it doesn't stay put; it'll either continue to move upward or, once you release it, move back into its original position. So in order to aim, you have to constantly push the joystick up, release, push up again, release, and repeat. This causes the turret to be rather shaky and you have to hope the ammunition hits the dragon.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2009, 11:01:10 AM

Yes! I miss the exploration value most of all. It's getting harder to find true platformers nowadays.

action9000 · **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2009, 02:57:26 PM

I completely agree with DarkWolf!

1) Games like Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, etc. just don't seem to exist anymore. The exploration-style platform games which were focused on GAMEPLAY as the main element; I really miss that. LittleBig Planet came pretty close to the kind of game I missed and I can't get enough of that one, though.

2) The trend of First-person shooters these days is something I'm not a fan of, either. Gone are the days when shooter games had 20 different guns and you could carry them all at once. Games seem to all be limited to 6-10 guns now, with the ability to carry no more than 2 or 3 at a time. <_< Sure it's more realistic but I'm pretty sad to see the genre of "hero who can carry a wicked arsenal to take out anyone in his path" totally wiped out.

Speaking of shooter games, I don't know how many more war shooters I can put up with.

They really all look the same to me. Gimme another classic-style Doom, Turok, Quake II, or even hurry up and get Serious Sam 3 out.

All these war shooters are just getting boring: 6 or so guns, carry 2 at a time (pistol and shotgun or assault rifle, typically), maybe one energy-based gun if you're lucky, one explosive gun..and everything dies in two hits with the pistol anyway.

3) I also miss the classic "health" meter in shooter games. What happened to having "100 health"? Seems we live in a world where games need to be so realistic that health has been replaced by heartrate monitors.

NeoGenesis005 · **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2009, 08:18:06 PM

Unnecessary/Useless Characters. Like for example Super Smash Bros. First off...who wants to play a dumb robot character name ROB?! or Pichu from Melee?! I swear again like this can set you on your nerve if you find useless characters in it.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2009, 08:25:03 PM

Who wants to play as a dumb robot named ROB? I do.

Yes, I admit it. I happen to like playing as ROB in Super Smash Brothers Brawl.

NeoGenesis005 · **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2009, 08:31:06 PM

Quote from: DarkHououmon,Apr 20 2009 on 07:25 PM

Who wants to play as a dumb robot named ROB? I do. Yes, I admit it. I happen to like playing as ROB in Super Smash Brothers Brawl.

Oh thats Wonderful. At least you found someone you like.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2009, 08:39:26 PM

What's that supposed to mean? Did I say something to upset you or something? The "At least you found someone you like" confused me.

DarkWolf91 · **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2009, 08:49:14 PM

Action, I've noticed that too! It's really heart-wrenching

But I've ranted about it so many times in so many other places that I find myself at a weary loss for words in regards to it

Though it is one of the reasons I started to think about majoring in Game Design.

And hey, I like playing as Rob, too

But then I like playing as pretty much everyone. His moveset is definitely unique, though, and a lot of fun to work with.

NeoGenesis005 · **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2009, 09:17:53 PM

Quote from: DarkHououmon,Apr 20 2009 on 07:39 PM

What's that supposed to mean? Did I say something to upset you or something? The "At least you found someone you like" confused me.

No I mean that. Wasn't trying to insult you. I actually respected your choice.

F-14 Ace · **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2009, 10:23:39 PM

One thing I don't like about many of the first person shooters I play is the fact that your character has no body. In Call of Duty, when you look down, you have no feet, legs, or torso. Same with Bioshock, though I hear Bioshock 2 is changing that. I can't wait to play as a Big Daddy.

Speaking of Bioshock, it was kinda annoying that the wrench was th only melee weapon in the game. I mean, why can't I at least use my shotgun as a club if I run out of ammo rather than having to switch to the wrench?

Speaking of bad camera, in the game, Heatseeker, when you shoot down an enemy airplane, it automatically switches to a view called "Impact Cam" where it shows you a view of the enemy plane breaking apart and exploding in slow motion. However, it gets really annoying because it does it each time you shoot something down and there is no way to turn it off. I call it the "Fail Cam".

One thing that annoyed me about the first Halo game was the fact that there was no mission map. I would spend up to an hour just trying to find where I was supposed to go. In the mission where you first encounter the Flood, I kept getting lost because there are several rooms that look the same and no way of telling which one I've already been through.

Ace Combat Advance. A 2D Ace Combat game on the GBA with poor graphics and bad gameplay = EPIC FAIL! The game was made of Fail! How do you take a great air combat game like Ace Combat and turn it into a stupid 2D hunk of garbage? No! Just... Epic Fail.