Oh yeah, I meant the second game. Probably should have specified that little detail.

Well, that's either a very small mosque, or those are some very large horses (c'mon, you knew we'd go looking for screenshots immediately once you posted that ;-)).

Nah, just kidding. That's the most extreme example I could find, and it isn't really that extreme. In general, you're right, that game did do a better job of scaling buildings to units than many others, as evidenced by this screenshot.

Ovary Sandwich

Believe it or not but you can actually get mosques that small!

Anyway. I hate:

*Stupid unskippable cut-scenes (the new super moves in Injustice spring to mind - if I have to watch Batman run someone over in his car just one more time...)
*No quick-save (Dark Souls).
*Third-person newbie games because console owners can't play in first person.
*Endless rubbish splash screens before you can even get to the game.
*Poorly optimised rubbish (stutter/slowdowns).
*Laughably linear FPS 'corridor shooter' games.
*Achievements that are impossible to achieve (I'm looking at you Super Meat Boy).
*DLC
*Micro transactions
*Easy games even on 'hard'
*No jump button in an FPS
*Invisible walls in an FPS

Ion Cannon.

Hellz yeah!

Ovary Sandwich.

I keep mentioning these:

In RTS games, but why not in other games too (but I seem to notice them mostly in RTS games):

- Timed missions, or at least they should be used sparingly and have a good reason to exist. It takes the fun out of it if the challenge mainly comes from having to reach all the objectives early enough. It is a very cheap way to make a game hard. I hate e.g. Rise of Nations for this.

Heck, I can easily make you an Arkanoid clone where the challenge mainly comes from having to destroy all the tiles in under 90 seconds. Satisfied? If that doesn't feel hard enough, let's make it 60 seconds then.

In turn-based strategy games, this is the same as having only a limited amount of moves to win the scenario. Same thing basically.

- Using the gamespeed as the difficulty element. In RTS games, I want the challenge to come from outwitting your enemy, not from how fast I can click my units over the period of the mission. E.g. early Blizzard RTS games (Starcraft and earlier) let you slow the game down to snail's pace, while Warcraft 3 onwards it seems they decided than in the harder difficulty levels you shouldn't be allowed to slow down the game speed (at least that much).

Maybe they felt RTS games can become a cakewalk if you can set the gamespeed to slow, but that is hogwash. Rise of Nations and Total Annihilation are quite challenging enough, even though you can slow down the gamespeed.


For mainly FPS games, and maybe some RPGs:

- If you decide to implement respawning enemies, PLEASE make sure that there is also respawning ammo and health. Nothing irritates me more than the game throwing an endless supply of enemies at me, but at the same time not providing me extra ammo or health packs. Ok, there may be some special cases where it makes sense, e.g. if it is a scene where you are supposed to flee and not fight the enemy. But generally speaking.

This is also why the respawning enemies in e.g. Far Cry 2 didn't really irritate me that much, as I knew that it always meant the ammo, health syringes and grenades would also respawn.

I think the easiest way to solve this problem is to make enemies carry ammo and/or health packs that you can pick from them when they are down. Hence, the more there are enemies, the more there will also be loose ammo and health packs. I... don't recall Starcraft having different difficulty settings? Or did it? Maybe I've forgotten. Starcraft 2 (as well as Warcraft 3) do, I think.

Ovary Sandwich

"press a to jump"

When a game treats you like a idiot.

Happens in rpgs sometimes : "Well I'm going to explore a bit and grind" Super monster : "lol nope!"
In other words, things like cazadores.

Yeah. I don't recall any turn-based strategy/tactical games either where the units would really scale, and RTS games mostly are those same games just turned into a real-time mode, so...

In turn-based games people seem to accept it more easily that those are mere symbols depicting something, so you don't have to care how they look or scale. They are basically that also in (most) RTS games, even if they are moving in real time.

I should've clarified the quote a little, I meant to say tutorials to very obvious things. Speaking of FI I am reminded about something else that bothers me...
"Shouldn't you take a break?"

Ovary Sandwich (is this better than a fetus omelette? not that ive tasted one....:P).... im one of those who like indie games BUT i hate how many of them are so fricking short!!! (similar to what lugum said) -- thats probably my THE pet hate about games right now ....

I'm in! I also ca't stand the unrealistic building-units size Strategy games have. Nothing else comes to mind. If anything, I'll edit the post with other things I dislike.

Oh, gads. That was one of the biggest minor turnoffs from Nintendo. Just being treated like a child in general...

Ovary Sandwich

I agree. I also hate Adventure games that require needless quick actions. In Starship Titanic, there is a parrot who is holding something you need to proceed. You have to distract the parrot and quickly grab what he is holding. Whether I am just plain slow, poor mechanics, or a combination of both, I never got past this point. At the time, I wanted to finish that game. Instead, I quit in frustration.

Unskippable dialogs and cutscenes when you're dying a lot...

Count me in, thanks!