next »

[valrus]

Yeah, that's what I meant by "cousin" there.

[Schoq]

Oh I guess this is where I complain about how dumb FOV widening at sprint is. What the heck is up with that

[s0]

I think it's one of those Epic Nextgen Gamefeeeeel things that people do just because

I probably already mentioned this ITT, but the bloody screen (aka grape jelly) effect on taking damage is one of the dumbest things I've ever

[Zaeche]

Oh I guess this is where I complain about how dumb FOV widening at sprint is. What the heck is up with that

Out of curiousity, any ideas on better alternatives to that? I suppose I mean specifically using the camera/lens. I'd like to think there are some merits in signaling a sprint that way, even it's as heavy-handed as in Gears of War ...

[Schoq]

What's the merit? A jump doesn't have to be signalled by a screen flash or something because you already know you're jumping: you pressed a button and your character jumped. A sprint similarly doesn't have to be signalled in because you're already holding a button and your character is already moving faster (+ appropriate animation and sound cues).

It's just an extremely ham-fisted way to make the sprint feel faster (why is that necessary?) and always feels cheesy as heck.

[Alec S.]

It's useful if the faster speed is fast enough mechanically, but doesn't feel fast enough to be properly satisfying (It also gives something of a tunnel-vision effect, so you are less aware of your periphery when going fast.  It lends to a feeling of being slightly out-of-control).  I agree it can be overdone, but it can lend to the overall feel of certain games (Fast Racing Neo and Vanquish are good examples)  

[mtarini]

Funny, I actually like most other peoples' "pet peeves". I could argue in favor of almost each of them.

Instead, I'll throw in one of mine:
In RPG and the likes, world which automatically levels up with the player.
An attempt to fix bad design with worse design.

[Tuba]

Funny, I actually like most other peoples' "pet peeves". I could argue in favor of almost each of them.

I think every "design pet peeve" has it's place if used correctly.

[Zencha]

Funny, I actually like most other peoples' "pet peeves". I could argue in favor of almost each of them.

Instead, I'll throw in one of mine:
In RPG and the likes, world which automatically levels up with the player.
An attempt to fix bad design with worse design.

Exec: "We need retention!!!!!"

"Let's put the player on a treadmill!!!"

"Now things are too easy. Put the world on a treadmill!!!"

Designer: "uh... how about we just skip treadmill?"

Exec: GET BACK ON YOUR TREADMILL

*Designer is very tired from running on his treadmill. Knowing he might one day work on a quality game fills him with determination.*

 

[Zaeche]

What's the merit? A jump doesn't have to be signalled by a screen flash or something because you already know you're jumping: you pressed a button and your character jumped. A sprint similarly doesn't have to be signalled in because you're already holding a button and your character is already moving faster (+ appropriate animation and sound cues).

It's just an extremely ham-fisted way to make the sprint feel faster (why is that necessary?) and always feels cheesy as heck.

((I'll probably have a longer think on this later because I do agree with you to a certain extent ... but for a sprint? With you on that one. Sprints aren't fast enough to warrant that.))

It's useful if the faster speed is fast enough mechanically, but doesn't feel fast enough to be properly satisfying (It also gives something of a tunnel-vision effect, so you are less aware of your periphery when going fast.  It lends to a feeling of being slightly out-of-control).  I agree it can be overdone, but it can lend to the overall feel of certain games (Fast Racing Neo and Vanquish are good examples) 

I think the feel of it is certainly one argument--funnily enough, I was thinking of Vanquish when I posted my response earlier.

Personally, I've always considered it less of an aesthetic or 'game feel' thing and more of a control problem--specifically how inertia relates to control (faster speed, more inertia, the more out of control it feels).

If the player avatar is moving quickly enough, having a better view of their surroundings means they're less likely to bump into things (the more they can see of the level, the more they can anticipate obstacles). I would argue for working with zooms/pans rather than messing with the FoV (much like NFS-2015? I can't exactly recall but I do remember loving how they handled sharp turns). Seems a more elegant solution to me but ... not flawless.

[s0]

Funny, I actually like most other peoples' "pet peeves". I could argue in favor of almost each of them.

Instead, I'll throw in one of mine:
In RPG and the likes, world which automatically levels up with the player.
An attempt to fix bad design with worse design.

Exec: "We need retention!!!!!"

"Let's put the player on a treadmill!!!"

"Now things are too easy. Put the world on a treadmill!!!"

Designer: "uh... how about we just skip treadmill?"

Exec: GET BACK ON YOUR TREADMILL

*Designer is very tired from running on his treadmill. Knowing he might one day work on a quality game fills him with determination.*

 

actually upgrades/leveling mechanics are one of my favorite things in games

[ProgramGamer]

I'll provide a counter-argument. Sonic Adventures needed for sonic to feel fast, but they probably didn't have the tech to make a fov widening effect. Their solution? Make sonic so incredibly fast that he is barely controlable. In this situation, slowing sonic down and adding a fov effect would have made the game more enjoyable and playable because you could have actually been able to tell what was going on and reacted accordingly.

[GaiaX2]

I'll provide a counter-argument. Sonic Adventures needed for sonic to feel fast, but they probably didn't have the tech to make a fov widening effect. Their solution? Make sonic so incredibly fast that he is barely controlable. In this situation, slowing sonic down and adding a fov effect would have made the game more enjoyable and playable because you could have actually been able to tell what was going on and reacted accordingly.

The MAJOR drawback was the camera. Sometimes there are areas within each stage where it can outright BETRAY you (Final Egg, for instance). So while Sonic Adventure DID benefit from the FOV, that I feel was ruined by the clunky camera controls.

On that note: Bubsy 3D is literally this topic summed up in a video game: From a bizarre camera setup (camera's pointing DOWN while the bobcat's jumping), the overall unfinished look that's passed off as "great graphics", the nonexistant gameplay that clunky as hell, the forced humor, etc.

[Sik]

Sonic Adventure had both weird camera angles and also rather broken physics (and in fact that stayed around until Sonic '06, for the record). Sonic going too fast wasn't much of a problem because outside scripted portions he never really goes that fast in the first place (and also outside scripted areas most of the time the road is just towards the direction the camera is looking at, and when not it means you're meant to go slow).

[Zencha]

actually upgrades/leveling mechanics are one of my favorite things in games

To be fair, I also love speccing and upgrading too. I spent time working on mobile F2P stuff which used those tools as a way to maximize player retention and monetization... left a mild sour taste in my mouth.

[diegzumillo]

Minimaps. I know, they are usually useful. But sometimes they are too useful, to the point where 100% of my attention is on that 5% of screen space and all the rest of the screen, where all the millions of dollars of development money went, becomes useless.

[s0]

Oh yeah, definitely. Also I've found that in games with very detailed minimaps level designers often get lazy and it's hard to get around without the map. Even tho it's perfectly possible to make clear and readable level design, even in 3D with a "realistic" graphics style, if you set the right landmarks and stuff (see dark souls).

It also sucks when games do navigation using the environment really well and then sabotage themselves by including a big fat handholding arrow. Bioshock 1 did that. Yeah it's optional but it's enabled by default and most players aren't going to disable it.

[JWK5]

*Game mechanics that lead to hopeless matches or result in guaranteed victories.

I've been playing Smite and Paragon, both MOBAs, and while for the most part they are fun one thing I am quickly coming to detest is that you can end up in a no-win situation very early on in a match with the match able to drag on for quite some time in this state.

Basically, either you end up getting out-leveled and have no chance to catch up because the now higher-leveled enemy is able to frustrate and halt any attempts to earn decent experience (while they in turn only continue to gain experience by decimating you) or if you are a beginner you simply get out-equiped where other players maximize their builds and anything less than a maximized build is going to lead you to getting near insta-killed.

While maybe the latter scenario can be fixed by going and searching out info on the net, the former scenario is can be pretty unavoidable unless you have a well-practiced team you are a part of. If you have a novice team who does not run together or who suffers from the latter scenario mentioned (either case happens very often) you will get out-leveled as the opposing team picks you off one-by-one.

The shitty part is apparently for this genre these dead-end games are acknowledged by the designers which is why they include a  surrender option, so you can opt-out rather than let the misery drag on (but because the majority of your team has to agree and most stubbornly won't you are fucked).

In a fighting game, you still generally have a fair chance (outside of glitched mechanics) to make a push for victory right down to the last sliver of life you have, I've won many matches where I got knocked down to a pinch of life at the start of the match but played like a champ and still won. Because of this, skill is the main determinant for winning. I realize you can develop skill at a MOBA and that will help mitigate some of the frustration, but the point is it is there to the extent that the designers have to throw in a cop-out "surrender" option. In the terrible event a teammate drops out of the game or you have one or more new players you are pretty much fucked.

I am not a fan of rubber band mechanics but I don't think, especially in a multiplayer game, a game should ever take the option of winning off the table unless the player has actually lost. Someone had mentioned previously that the one Blizzard MOBA levels up the team as a whole rather than individual players, I can see how that definitely could help the problem. Another thing that could help is rather than the lazy "+X Magic, +Y Health, +Z Critical, etc." equipment/cards/etc. you attach to the characters how about more versatility and options built around the character. "Under this circumstance get X ability or Y Bonus", so instead of obsoletism and power escalation you are building around strategy.



tl;dr: Despair-by-design is a horrible thing to inflict on a player, designers that do this need a swift crowbar to the kneecaps. Obsoletism and power escalation suck.

[s0]

mobas are a really weird genre tbh. they started out as basically custom starcraft and later warcraft 3 maps (aeon of strife) that you would play for fun (the main draw of aos maps was to get your hero decked out with gear and do ridiculous dmg basically) and slowly grew into serious "competitive" games. so they were never really "designed" in that sense. a lot of the weirdness that the genre still maintains can be attributed to that i think.

[Tuba]

MOBAs are very team dependent, if the whole team is not on the same level it doesn't work. It sucks but that's just how it goes, at least in LOL they acknowledge this and new players are encouraged to play against bots until they reach a certain level. Playing against humans that are more experienced will always result in a ridiculous defeat.

Still... yeah, on modern fighting games there's a chance to turn the tables but I don't think the situation is that different.

IMO the only multiplayer games out there that are really balanced thinking about novice players are Nintendo ones. The item balancing in Mario Kart is the best example here, players that are far behind still have a chance because they get better items and the players that are too far ahead are still not safe because of things like blue shells.