Tutorials, my god... Especially when they are unskippable. I prefer exploring stuff on my own -.-
I also hate tutorials that *BAM* appear at your face, stopping the game.
*You are now fighting your first enemy. Press this+this...*
*You are now out of stamina for the first time. If this happens then....*
If this happenes, then you leave me f*ing alone, and let me find it out for myslef, OKAY??!!
There are some games that get it right, like Miasmata. It has many unique mechanics, so those how many? 3? max 4 popup tutorials are not only not annyoing, but also extremely necessary + all of them happen at the very beginning of the game. Unlike in some games, where you find tutorials even after 100+ hours of playing, when you just happened to start training magic, and *ghasp* lost mana for the first time.
Baldur's Gate had those tutorial monks on the 1st map. I either talked to them, or not. It was my call, and I prefer it this way.

Difficulty on the other hand is not that easy to talk about, because it heavily depends on person.
For example give me the easiest platformer in existence, set it to easy difficulty, then watch my epic fail attempts trying to get through level 1.
On the other hand give me Dragon Age and I solo it twice on nightmare, while complaining about it being too easy :P
My friend is the absolute opposite. She owns platformers on ultra-hard, but Dragon Age on easy is too much for her.

1- I agree, thats why I wait for Gold or GOTY editions.

2- this angers me to no end, especially in FPS where they basically go " You can move the reticule up, down, left and right!. I lose it when I get an achievement for very basic stuff.

4- I actually like multiple playthroughs of a game, but I see what you mean. I'd like to add if I play a game at the highest
difficulty, I unlock everything from that difficulty downward. I've beaten the game on hard, I should've unlocked
everything, don't make me play easy and normal modes for their bounuses. I remember Gundam Battle Assault 2
was guilty of this.

5- Agreed

6- Isn't fun playing and using a guide for every step you take to make sure you dont miss anything? The best part is
when you get something that wasn't even worth it. Fallout 3's Operation: Anchorage's Intel collection comes to mind.

This is so freaking annoying, like I said, when most of these games are M anyway I can't believe that anyone with any right playing these games doesn't already know how to "look." Or that the obvious "fire" button fires. Maybe discuss the cover mechanics, if there are any, but when you have little screen pop ups and reticules telling you what to do at all times, what's the point? And then we have achievements, which are silly anyway, sillier yet are "Congrats, you took your first step!" or "Beat level One!" or something like that.
Edit: If games still came with manuals, not really most PC games where buttons can be mapped in the options menu, one who really is just plain lost could look it up and not waste the time of those of us who are familiar with the mechanics.

Achievements:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBxNq2FWmLg

Exactly.

This made my day, thank you sir!. It reminded me of the Assassin's Creed 2 Achievement for just being born, it was ridiculous.

I don't see any problem in that. I actually enjoy these things. I presume that the kind of player who doesn't feel like replaying a game for unlockable content also doesn't care about the unlockables themselves very much. And personally I actually like playing a game that I enjoy multiple times, plus I consider getting a special reward when I beat a game a second time a neat bonus, not a limitation to the original playthrough.

And as others have stated - when a supposedly big and at least somewhat unlinear game (which at least allows you to handle many situations in different manners) actually allows you to get 100% with one playthrough, then something is seriously wrong.

And anyway, if you don't like a game enough to be willing to beat it twice then you shouldn't care about the 100% much, eh? I actually *kinda* agree with you on that one. I *really* dislike missable collectables in linear games, the worst offenders being games where the unlockables aren't stored globally but for a single playthrough, especially when they provide a meaningful bonus. The games I think of are Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and The Two Thrones as well as BioShock. Depending on the kind of player you are these systems force you to play the game with a guide, doing so harms the game's flow and you are basically forced to endure at least minor spoilers, potentially huge ones - after all, the only way of making sure that you haven't missed one of the relevant items/locations is by comparing your progress to descriptions of locations and events in the guide.

There's a few games that have been ruined for me due to this shit. I'm perfectly okay with it, though, when it's stored globally and the game provides a chapter select screen that also tells you where the missing collectables are - then I don't feel so pressured and am perfectly willing to focus on the plot during my first approach. Not to mention in sandbox games. But sandbox games with missable collectables on the other hand are the stupidest thing ever conceived and their developers deserve to be hung by their balls.

I agree for the most part. Two comments: I don't mind in-game tutorial (in fact I want it at least in strategy games so that I don't have to read a manual; I like how most RTS games keep teaching you new things with most early missions, I learn while I play), but in many cases I still prefer it to be separate (ie. optional) from the main game, but for an opposite reason from yours:

I want to be able to replay the tutorial easily, even if I've already played the game for some time. For example, I had to replay the tutorial of Mirror's Edge again later simply because I had forgotten the rather complex controls while I had been away from the game for several weeks (or was it months?). I don't want to have to restart the whole game just in order to access the tutorial later. It is tricky to make the difficulty settings right for a large group of people, but I actually prefer games which have only one difficulty level. That way I can rest assured that the developers had to put some thought into getting the difficulty setting right, especially not making it impossible on the hardest difficulty levels.

Game that pops to my mind is Dungeon Keeper Gold. It felt quite hard at times, but since it didn't have any difficulty settings IIRC, I could still always rest assured that there must be some way to win the level. If it had had different difficulty levels and I had chosen the hardest ones, my complaints would probably have been met with "Well, maybe you should just crank down the difficulty level, huh?".

I feel that if multiple difficulty levels are created, many developers take the lazy way and just e.g. make the enemies stronger and you weaker. Like in some RPGs.

I also like how Magic Carpet was designed: some levels were damn hard, but usually the hardest parts were in the early parts of the level. So if you failed the level, you didn't have to replay much. And the longer you were able to survive a level, the more probable it becomes you will clear that level.

I'm more with Protoss on that one. I'm not saying you necessarily have to be able to see every tiny bit of the game in one playthrough, but if the game quite clearly forces you to replay many times all the way from the start just to see some tiny part a bit differently...

I disliked, was it Max Payne 1, where you couldn't access the hardest difficulty level until you had played the game through once with lower difficulty (I think Mirror's Edge had the same, but I actually did finish it twice). And I think Max Payne 2 had something similar, ie. you had to replay the whole game all over again in order to see some different ending (your gf not dying, or somesuch... I don't recall for sure, maybe that was an urban legend).

Different endings and such are nice, but I must admit I didn't feel like replaying e.g. Spec Ops: The Line several times just in order to see the multiple different endings. Instead, I replayed the very last parts many times to see them. At least it gave you that option. It was an ok game, but not great enough for me to want to go all over again through the identical boring parts.


All this is also the reason I much prefer party-based RPGs (like Baldur's Gate 1-2 or Icewind Dale) to single-person RPGs (like Diablo 2 or such) because with the party based RPGs I can have a taste of gameplay of various different player classes in one go. I can't play all possible characters, nor an evil and righteous, party at the same time in Baldur's Gate 2, but I still feel I get a much more versatile experience with one playthrough, compared to being able to play only one character class.

Or if the RPG had only one character, it would be nice he has no restrictions on what to learn. Sometimes you could concentrate on being a big brute, and sometimes develop your magic skills. That's fine too.


I felt Diablo 2 was especially bad in this regard. I first played it through as a warrior type, but then I had to make an odd decision: do I continue playing it a second time as a warrior type (so that I can access the harder difficulty levels, and even better items), or start the whole game from scratch with a different character class, using the same initial, easier, difficulty level as with the first playthrough?

I couldn't make up my mind, so instead I stopped playing it altogether and started playing something else instead. I dunno, maybe that is replay value, but sometimes too much is too much.

That's the case in every proper western RPG.

Fallout 1,2,3
Gothic 1,2,3
Star Wars: Kotor 1+2
Titan Quest (Hack'n'Slash)
etc...

You start as a random dude/girl and study whatever you want with him/her.

Only those fantasy orcs'n'elves RPGs are so restricted with classes because of pen&paper rules.

I'll take your word for it, apparently I was under the wrong impression that in e.g. Fallout you can be a big dumb brute that can decimate everyone with his left fist, or a precision shooter that can shoot someone in the eye from 500 meters, or a smooth negotiator who can convince others to do all the dirty work for him/her. But not all of these at the same time.

But if I get you right, even if you are that dumb brute in the beginning, during the game you may have developed into something completely different? (Just shows I've only barely played the Fallout games.)

Then again, when I played e.g. Ultima Underworld 1-2 (which were also single-player RPGs), I don't recall missing out on anything. I think you were free to learn anything in the gameworld, so in the end I was both a great fighter and a magician.

So long as you have the skill points for it, sure.

I recommend you give Arcanum a go for that kinda stuff.

Yes, like in Gothic (there if you find the right teacher-npc, teachers are not that important in Fallout) you are free to learn anything in the Fallout series. You need some very different skills to survive anyway and if you choose a low difficulty setting, you can be extremely versatile and change your mind completely about the destination of your character without losing hope to be able to finish the game, although this is easier in Fallout 1 and 3.
You CAN start with extremely high strength and low intelligence, but I always created characters that are not so extreme in one direction and you can alter the character later on anyway, partly by leveling up and partly by operations if you can get into the Brotherhood of Steel. Just like in real life this is limited to a certain amount of course, but there are no character classes at all and no "good" or "evil" judgement. You just play as you see fit and live with the consequences.

Being able to save the world as a children murdering slaver.... welcome to the world of Fallout. :D
(Bethesda removed the possibility of killing children in part 3 though, but I always played nice anyway.)

Yeah, tbh, I like non-linear storytelling as well. It's a bit of hassle to replay those parts of the story where nothing news happens, but if you have non-linear gameplay, like being able make different character build, having varying approaches to combat/puzzle solving/exploration etc., then that makes the game significantly tolerable on subsequent playthroughs.

@ Protoss's point #6: I don't mind missable stuff in a game, it just makes gameplay more interesting. However, there should be some indication, hint or something that you might miss out on something because otherwise the game is just playing by itself- the player can't divine gameplay rules or conditions just out of nothing.