The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => Hobbies and Recreation => Gamers Zone => Topic started by: 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?
-
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?
-
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 :D
-
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. :p
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.
-
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 :lol
Spyro holds a special place in my heart :p
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes! I miss the exploration value most of all. It's getting harder to find true platformers nowadays.
-
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. :p 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. :p 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. :p
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.
-
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.
-
Who wants to play as a dumb robot named ROB? I do. :p Yes, I admit it. I happen to like playing as ROB in Super Smash Brothers Brawl.
-
Who wants to play as a dumb robot named ROB? I do. :p 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.
-
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.
-
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 :lol
Though it is one of the reasons I started to think about majoring in Game Design.
And hey, I like playing as Rob, too :p But then I like playing as pretty much everyone. His moveset is definitely unique, though, and a lot of fun to work with.
-
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.
-
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. :D 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.
-
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.
A friend of mine has this exact same complaint in regards to FPS. In all honestly, I don't see the big deal. Who is going to aim at their feet anyway? It seems like a waste of processing power just to show the feet or body, things you aren't normally going to want to aim at anyway. Just my opinion.
As for not seeing feet, I heard a theory for why that is. The camera is inside the character, looking through their eyes, so-to-speak, rendering the body invisible (the arm is actually seperate). The feet can't be visible because of where the camera is.
-
As for not seeing feet, I heard a theory for why that is. The camera is inside the character, looking through their eyes, so-to-speak, rendering the body invisible (the arm is actually seperate). The feet can't be visible because of where the camera is.
Very possible. :)
Another theory I have is that the player doesn't have a body at all..at least according to the player. It would just be a waste of processing power. Other players' screens/computers draw the 3d models of you wherever their computers think you are, but there is no need to render and process the physics of a few thousand polygons on your computer if we can get away with an invisible cube that can collide with stuff to fake it. :p
This actually doesn't bother me, either.
Okay, let's see...
Racing games:
1) The trend of so many racing games being an "underground" or "gangster" theme. What happened to Need For Speed games where you're just a person with a fast car? :p Why does having a fast car automatically require you to be a shady, questionable character nowadays? :p
Other Comments:
1) Level editors that are basically useless. I quote Smash Bros. Brawl specifically on this one. There are countless other examples in the past and present as well:
Wii: Boom Blox (the custom levels can't be added to normal gameplay, have no way of declaring a winner, etc),
N64/Dreamcast/PC: RE-Volt (the track editor is so stupidly basic and inflexible it's not even worth using, though this game was from 1999 I believe).
2) Taking perfectly good features out of sequels, rather than just expanding the game. Again I'm pointing fingers at Smash Bros. Brawl. Question: Where's Bonus mode?? :p Where are all the cool points from playing the game with style? That was a cool feature in Melee and was completely removed for an unexplainable reason. It was how all my friends and I preferred to play SSB; as a result, nobody wants to play Brawl with me! :p
There was a time when putting a "2" after a game's name meant "the same game, made better!": New stuff, better graphics, better controls, you name it.
Doom
Doom 2
Quake
Quake 2
Unreal Tournament
Unreal Tournament 2004 (aka. 3, technically :p)
Smash Bros.
Smash Bros. Melee (aka. 2)
Nowadays, you never know what the heck you're going to gain and what you're going to lose in a sequel.
Doom 2 -> Doom 3 is like playing a COMPLETELY different game! Doom 3 does not contain what I liked about the Doom series. This is the general trend I've been noticing.
Jsut an FYI: Doom 64 was awesome. :p
-
Oh gawd...I feel like Viktor Frankenstein! I've made monster out of all of ya!!! I've created a page of gaming haters?! :blink: :( Nnnnooooooo!!! *ahem* sorry about that... random outburst :oops :lol
On note with the "seeing a players feet" ploy. It's a methodology that has recently come into play because it is becoming increasely more important to create visibly good looking models. Hence why the camera is literally placed just in front of the model's eyes so you can physically see the body of the avatar you are controlling. With the increase in processing power, it's much more viable to achieve than before.
One thing that does get my goat however, is the number of what I call "brain-dead" games out there. Games that just appeal to the masses for either being ultra-violent and have absolutely no plot or where the story was an after thought. Games that appeal to people who don't wanna think and just wanna blow the crap out of everything with the biggest gun they can find.
Also, as creative as both these mediums are, why is it that game/movie companies insist on making games of movies or movies of games?! Apart from a few exceptions, most of them are just pitiful. Most games of movies are just pathetic tags-ons in an attempt to breathe a little more life into a movie release that's just gonna hit the bargain bin after a month it's hit DVD release.
One more factor that really annoys me. Companies that take a perfectly wonderful working formula and twist it in a modern remake that completely defies what it originally used to be. Golden Axe: Beast Rider is a prime example of this. Everything that made this golden classic of the 90s a smash hit was torn out. And what did they do with it? Removed all but a few familiar faces (beleve me, there weren't very many faces to actually remove), surgecally removed the multiplayer (possibly with a shotgun) and put a bosom-bouncing, half-naked amazonian chick on the back of a organic crotch-rocket in an effort to spill more virtual blood than Dracula could get high on! :slap I loved the original Golden Axe but this was a travesty in my opinion. Every core element that made his game king of its realm was removed...why I ask you WHY?! :cry2 :bang
-
I can't stand how the physiques of the Mortal Kombat characters are always changing :bang! I swear, in the latest game where they're up against DC Universe characters, they look like they've gotten extreme lipo procedures done :x!
-
Taking perfectly good features out of sequels, rather than just expanding the game. Again I'm pointing fingers at Smash Bros. Brawl. Question: Where's Bonus mode?? dino_tongue.gif Where are all the cool points from playing the game with style? That was a cool feature in Melee and was completely removed for an unexplainable reason. It was how all my friends and I preferred to play SSB; as a result, nobody wants to play Brawl with me!
I know how that feels, although its with the new handicap system. Now i know that having extra percentage is a better way of having a handicap system (instead of melee's way), but it was way more fun in melee. The most fun times from melee are when me and 2 of my friends teamed up against one computer (Ganondorf) that had max handicap, while we only had 1 each. It was hilarious trying to see how many lives you could take off the computer before you lose. Heres (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3215870712525587347) an example.
-
What I' don't like is how computer players usually get the upper hand over the human players (in some games though). For instant take Mario Kart Double Dash; you going 54 to 59 mph (150cc Speed) and :bang you see the computers going pass you going 65+ mph without any speed boost items. I swear these game programs can get you upset.
-
You can still beat them, as long as you have items. What I really hate about the Kart gasmes is that when you have a lead of more than 5 seconds you get pelted, one of 3 things one after the other - blue leadertracket, and red shell, and another item, which costs you time..
-
You can still beat them, as long as you have items. What I really hate about the Kart gasmes is that when you have a lead of more than 5 seconds you get pelted, one of 3 things one after the other - blue leadertracket, and red shell, and another item, which costs you time..
ungh, i forgot all about Mario Kart. Its especially bad on the Wii version. I remember playing one of the cups on 150cc. It was the last course of the cup, i got 1st on all the other races, and i was in first on the last lap on the home stretch. Just then i get hit by a blue shell, as soon as i started to accelerate, i got hit by a red shell, and when i started to accelerate again, i got hit by a green shell! ended up finishing 5th on the course, so i had to start the whole cup over so i could get a gold medal and have a 1-3 star rank. :anger Its like the computers were purposely toying with me until the very end.
-
I'll tell you guys one thing I think everyone hates to see in a game:
Seeing your character die in a gruesome way.
The (I guess you could say) the best of the worst are the ones from Dead Space. I mean, if you get killed by a big brute space zombie, he doesn't just whack you and you're dead. He picks you up, bites your head off, then rips your body in half!
-
I doubt any player likes seeing their avatar die as it co-integrates with the concept of failure! And no-one plays to fail right?!
But yeah, with the up in graphics, there has definitely been an up in graphical violence :p Resident Evil 4/5, Dead Space, MadWorld are all prime examples of how to go out in a bloody shower :blink: There are some instant killers on RE4 I just have to look away from the screen sometimes...makes me cringe :confused
-
You still should have win first place Flatehead, 5th place gets you 8 points and you have 45 going in, so you should have won with 53 points. The bad part about Wii is that there are no redo options
-
I doubt any player likes seeing their avatar die as it co-integrates with the concept of failure! And no-one plays to fail right?!
But yeah, with the up in graphics, there has definitely been an up in graphical violence :p Resident Evil 4/5, Dead Space, MadWorld are all prime examples of how to go out in a bloody shower :blink: There are some instant killers on RE4 I just have to look away from the screen sometimes...makes me cringe :confused
Beware Jason...
The Garrador's coming to haunt ya! :wow
I agree. Lately there has been sort of a new trend to make game violence more graphic. I don't know what to say. I don't know if it's "good" or "bad"...
-
You still should have win first place Flatehead, 5th place gets you 8 points and you have 45 going in, so you should have won with 53 points. The bad part about Wii is that there are no redo options
Yea but i wanted to get a good ranking on the cup (E, D, C, B, A, *, **, ***). I wanted to get at least a ** rank so i would have to get 1st on every race.
-
Beware Jason...
The Garrador's coming to haunt ya! :wow
Not funny dude! :p :DD That one freaked me out when it hit me the first time. When the Garrador charges at you claws raised! :blink: It just looks painful! :confused That one and when El Gigante grabs you when you dunk one in the lava pit. Didn't expect that one! :wow
-
Boy, this reminds me of the time when one of my older cousins was play Indiana Jones on the Xbox when he got to the Crocodile Level got eatin' everytime.
-
one i hate is when you have used everything that you have collected to beat a opponent only to find out that you were SUPPOSE to loose
-
one i hate is when you have used everything that you have collected to beat a opponent only to find out that you were SUPPOSE to loose
Agreed. Unless there is an option to save right before each boss, I highly dislike fighting an enemy in a game not knowing if I actually can defeat him/her/it or not. That is especially true when items are hard to come by, and you use some, if not all, of them for someone you have no choice but to lose to. Such an example would be the first time fighting Magic Emperor Ghaleon in Lunar: Silver Star Story for the PlayStation. Angel Rings, which are extremely rare (I only found two in the whole game) automatically revive a character when KOed then vanish. Ah, what a waste. He defeats you regardless on your first time versing him.
Things like that should be done in a cutscene. If you know you will lose in such an interactive battle, you won't even try. If you don't know, it is possible to be one angry, lighter player. This has happened to me so many times. Such battles could be better if you get your things back. For example, I wouldn't mind such a battle being a dream sequence, and when you wake up, all your things are back. Or maybe when you lose you are about to actually die in the story and some powerful character that can control time reverts you back to before the battle. If makers like those kinds of fights to be interactable, they should appeal more to players by keeping them from possible losing valuable items during them.
Some bosses come in surprise attacks, so a player could possibly have played for hours only to be surprised by a boss like that. So to reload, a lot of valuable play time is lost. With the continuation of frustrated players at this ill type of event, you have to wonder why they continue. Some games give a better score with less saves, so that is a factor that limits people doing so. I wish there was some way around this without having to consult a guide. Oi.
-
I agree with that! Then again, I don't like how scripted and 'orderly' JRPGs are in general so I'm a bit biased. :p
I really don't like how so many games have a great concept going but suffer from various stupid faults that just seem downright pathetic, yet can ruin an otherwise really cool game! :bang :p
A few examples:
Unreal Tournament 3: Very pretty game and this engine could have been the next big thing in the series. What did this game do wrong? Fewer customization options, fewer maps AND fewer game modes out of the box than the previous game, UT 2004. Fair enough, it's open to being modded, but I shouldn't have to wait until user-made mods are released in order to play the same game modes that were in the old version. Where's bombing run?? :p
Ack, my mind is full of randomness right now and I can't think of any other examples at the moment!
-
One thing which I really dislike with some RPGs is when they permit you too little storage room for the stuff you find. The main example for this is Diablo2 where once you got your chest box stuffed with gems (often lacking the one you need to turn a lot of low quality gems into high quality ones), special items for a collection which you rarely ever get completed, and runes, things are getting really frustrating. I know it is unrealistic when (for example in case of games such as the Gothic series) the character is able to carry an unlimited pile of stuff around with him all the time, but it is just as unrealistic when in Diablo2 a gem takes up no less space in your chest than a suit of armor does.
-
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.
yes that is annoying, i have the pc version of halo 1. guess what? i fixed up that problem ^^ i modded the HUD so it has an arrow that points to where you go, it works great!!! but it glitches up when your driving in the last level.....
-
has anyone here played silent hill for ps2? (i can't remember it's full name....)
in the game you play as a chick, in a part of the game i was up to i saw a bridge....i began to walk across, tentacles grab me and pull me into the water and blood floats up to surface.....i was playing this game in the middle of the night...no one else home but me....turned up real loud..it scared the complete %$#@ out of me!!! i absolutely %$#@ my pants!!!
-
Video game pet peeves:
Non-free camera - Sonic Adventure 2 Battle is a major offender. While the camera was pretty good at tracking you. I like the ability to pan, zoom and rotate the camera freely. And the lack of said abilities has killed me a few times.
Non stacking inventory - I can understand the "bag/puzzle" style inventories for RPGs but an ordinary inventory should be able to stack items. Pokemon Mystery dungeon is the only game where this occurs: Yes, I would like to be able to carry 4 oran berries (healing items) without taking 4 slots!
Obscenely cheap attacks - Final bosses do have the right to be a bit cheap but the key word is a bit. Tabuu from Smash Brothers Brawl is a key example. I can deal with a instant kill attack but to blanket the whole screen with not 1 but 3 of those attacks, one after the other? That's a bit much.
"Chain" bosses - 2 bosses one after the other with no time to heal or for that matter, do anything. This does irritate me a bit because both chain bosses are usually extremely tough. Tales of Symphonia had only one instance but it was a triple chain. First Remiel, then Kratos, then Yggdrasil. Granted, you only have to kill Remiel but without a guide, you don't know that Kratos is optional and you are supposed to lose to Yggdrasil. My friend and died about 10+ times vs Remiel and Kratos (we didn't know Kratos was optional so the second all our characters died, we hit reset.)