It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Skill systems like in the Gothic series. When you level up, you can`t simply distribute your skill points. No, no, my friend, you have to find the right teacher first, who is hidden somewhere in the huge game world, or else you can`t level the specific skil you want, Oh, and don`t forget to bring huge amounts of money, cause those motherfuckers are really greedy like Uncle Scrooge!!!!
Somebody mentioned realism, but this kind of realism is too much, it`s -at least for me- game destroying!!
Post edited September 25, 2015 by Maxvorstadt
Mazes were pretty nice. DOOM, HERETIC, HEXEN, QUAKE used them

avatar
227: Procedural generation. It's an interesting little feature that sometimes works well enough, but it never has and never will replace meaningful level design. Indies in particular seem weirdly obsessed with it.
Because is easy.
Post edited September 25, 2015 by YaTEdiGo
Has anyone said weapon breakage/degradation yet? It's an annoyance in Witcher 3 and the later Fallout games, and then there are games like The Cursed Crusade where your weapon breaks every couple enemies like everything is made out of porcelain. I've yet to see a game that incorporates weapon degradation or breakage without it just being a tedious thing you need to keep track of.

avatar
dtgreene: Here is another one: patches that fix exploits. I am one of those who likes playing around with glitches, and I don't like it when developers fix the fun glitches.
101% this. Also, when they rebalance fun exploits that aren't technically glitches. For example, I heard awhile back that they removed your ability to get over 100% immunity to fire in Divinity: Original Sin and be healed by lava while enemies immolate themselves trying to get to you. Using a game's systems against it is fun, and removing fun stuff is dumb.
low rated
avatar
227: Has anyone said weapon breakage/degradation yet? It's an annoyance in Witcher 3 and the later Fallout games, and then there are games like The Cursed Crusade where your weapon breaks every couple enemies like everything is made out of porcelain. I've yet to see a game that incorporates weapon degradation or breakage without it just being a tedious thing you need to keep track of.
Actually, I think the weapon breakage/degredation mechanic serves a real purpose; it adds a cost to physical attacks. Whether this is desirable depends on the game's balance; for instance, in games where physical attacks are more powerful than spells, it makes sense to put this sort of limit on physical attacks, but in games where spells are more powerful, it typically doesn't. The thing is, if there are any actions that don't cost anything to use, the ones that have a cost must be *significantly* stronger (or the resurce needs to quickly regenerate) or players will never use them.

For an example of what can happen, consider Saga Frontier 2. In this games, weapons (with some exceptions) have finite durability, but spells and martial arts do not (although there are WP and JP costs, with JP recovering to a certain amount depending on equipment). The result is that many players tend to avoid using weapons (except for the ones that don't break), and some may go further and use only spell and (with infitnite durability weapons only) hybrid arts most of the time.

avatar
dtgreene: Here is another one: patches that fix exploits. I am one of those who likes playing around with glitches, and I don't like it when developers fix the fun glitches.
avatar
227: 101% this. Also, when they rebalance fun exploits that aren't technically glitches. For example, I heard awhile back that they removed your ability to get over 100% immunity to fire in Divinity: Original Sin and be healed by lava while enemies immolate themselves trying to get to you. Using a game's systems against it is fun, and removing fun stuff is dumb.
I have actually been thinking of replaying one of the first generation Pokemon games simply because of all the glitches that lets you do tons of interesting things, including executing arbitrary code.
Post edited September 25, 2015 by dtgreene
Dungeons. Huge, sprawling dungeons chock full of enemies you have to wade through, and every room is a giant slog to clear. I realise it's a matter of taste and that many people prefer large dungeons, but to me they're lazy game padding. Miles of corridors that all look the same, rooms peppered with loot containers and predictable traps, enemies stacked into rooms without rhyme or reason. All the time with very little plot advancement. Easy to design, but hard to get through. I like more story in my RPGs, and more varied environments, especially overworld.
avatar
dtgreene: An anti-feature is a "feature" that the game (or other thing) would be better off without.

For purposes of this topic, please only discuss anti-features of the game design itself, and not things like DRM (which is an anti-feature, but it's not the point of the topic).

What anti-features in games are more common than they should be?

Here are two that I can come up with:

1. Punishment for death. Some games penalize characters who die with things like aging or permanent stat penalties. These penalties simple serve the function of encouraging players to reload rather than accepting the death and continuing on. The player already has to repeat a section or play down a party member or spend resources on revival; you don't need to punish her any further.

2. Genre switches. When someone chooses a game, that person chooses a game of a genre that she wants to play (and is able to). When the game switches genre, you end up in a situation where the player must get through a part of the game that she hates to get to the good part of the game. One example is stealth sequences in non-stealth games (like modern Zelda); another is action mini-games like the ones in Final Fantasy games.

In the cast of example 2, some players may not even be able to pass certain points. Putting action in a turn-based game, for example, causes problems for disabled gamers who can't press buttons fast enough to go through action games. Putting a turn-based sequence in an action game (which is far less common) can be an issue for young children who don't know how to read.
Does pay wall / time wall of FTP count?
avatar
Charon121: Dungeons. Huge, sprawling dungeons chock full of enemies you have to wade through, and every room is a giant slog to clear. I realise it's a matter of taste and that many people prefer large dungeons, but to me they're lazy game padding. Miles of corridors that all look the same, rooms peppered with loot containers and predictable traps, enemies stacked into rooms without rhyme or reason. All the time with very little plot advancement. Easy to design, but hard to get through. I like more story in my RPGs, and more varied environments, especially overworld.
When it comes to dungeons, I prefer the Zelda & Lufia II method: A dungeon with fixed enemy placement and a variety of puzzles to resolve. That is one of the reasons why I like La-Mulana so much as well - each area has unique things to do.
avatar
Charon121: Dungeons. Huge, sprawling dungeons chock full of enemies you have to wade through, and every room is a giant slog to clear. I realise it's a matter of taste and that many people prefer large dungeons, but to me they're lazy game padding. Miles of corridors that all look the same, rooms peppered with loot containers and predictable traps, enemies stacked into rooms without rhyme or reason. All the time with very little plot advancement. Easy to design, but hard to get through. I like more story in my RPGs, and more varied environments, especially overworld.
Definitely matter of taste, specific taste probably. I caught myself on thought, that I analyze new game reviews on subject if game is gameplay-heavy or plot-heavy. Back in my time, place of plot in games was "just speak with all NPCs if you are stuck somewhere", "speak with every NPC in each new town couple times just in case". That's it, you do it and forget it.

And varied environments aren't mutually exclusive with big dungeons. I'd even say that I saw less variety in environment in plot-heavy games.

Also this "anti-feature" isn't far too common nowadays, which is rather sad...
"realistic" ghost enemies that can pass through walls and attack you while inside a wall. in lands of lore, pokemon mysterious dungeons, and some angbands i think.

in TES:arena, some bugged monsters stuck in walls can also attack you.
Post edited September 25, 2015 by dick1982
low rated
avatar
dick1982: "realistic" ghost enemies that can pass through walls and attack you while inside a wall. in lands of lore, pokemon mysterious dungeons, and some angbands i think.

in TES:arena, some bugged monsters stuck in walls can also attack you.
In Arena, can't you just hit the enemy with an area spell or use a spell to destroy the wall if that happens?
avatar
dick1982: "realistic" ghost enemies that can pass through walls and attack you while inside a wall. in lands of lore, pokemon mysterious dungeons, and some angbands i think.

in TES:arena, some bugged monsters stuck in walls can also attack you.
avatar
dtgreene: In Arena, can't you just hit the enemy with an area spell or use a spell to destroy the wall if that happens?
Area spells should work, but I don't feel like ever replaying that heap of trash for various reasons.
Along with cut scenes, I also wish they'd let me skip tutorials and 'on rails" sections (or pseudo "on rails" sections where you can move, but it's really limited to just walking forward until you can actually play the game), especially at the beginning of the game (I'm looking at you Half-Life and Far Cry 3).

Most tutorials are pointless. I remember a day when you figured out what you could do by looking at the key bindings and then just pressing buttons in game. In under a minute I'd know exactly how to do everything.

There are exceptions though. I needed the tutorial for Mirror's Edge since they do things quite differently in that game and there are lots of little subtleties that aren't obvious with experimentation.
avatar
227: Has anyone said weapon breakage/degradation yet? It's an annoyance in Witcher 3 and the later Fallout games, and then there are games like The Cursed Crusade where your weapon breaks every couple enemies like everything is made out of porcelain. I've yet to see a game that incorporates weapon degradation or breakage without it just being a tedious thing you need to keep track of.
System Shock 2. Yes, even there, I can see how weapon degradation *could* annoy you. But I think it adds a lot to the game. Most of the firearms you find early on in the game are broken, and the few that aren't will still break soon if you rely on them too much. In survival horror, you're never too safe, you're often starved for resources and weapons are just another resource to watch out for.. avoid fights or make sure you have a backup plan when you run out of ammo or your gun breaks. Or invest skill points into maintenance. But then what other skills are you losing out on? These hard choices and tradeoffs make the character development interesting and more meaningful than just simple stat increases. And the insecurity that weapon breakage adds makes the survival horror experience more immersive.
Anyone say Quicktime events yet? That breaks immersion really quickly.
You could say that the omnipresent quest compass is the greatest of anti-features since it allows developers to be lazy and put very little thought into map design and descriptive text.