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

×
I'll start with a few easy examples:

Forced stealth, especially if it's the kind that kicks you back to an arbitrary point instead of letting you fight or run.

Forced vehicle select: While it makes sense not to bring the El Diablo to a golf course mission, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to bring your cement truck instead of the wimpy Craptoom to the demolition derby.

And of course, the obligatory walky cutscene that became old a few years after Half-Life 2 came out. You know, where they don't want it to be "cinematic" so they don't take your controls away while someone babbles on about things?

So, what's your peeves? I know there's probably been a thread like this before, but who cares?
My main genre is RPGs and my absolutely BIGGEST pet peeve in the world is when they don't give you the option to do a very common sense thing. The original ending of Fallout 3 is a good example, where you couldn't have the super mutant companion hit the button or whatever because Bethesda wanted to force their silly sacrifice or a-hole binary choice. RPGs are about freedom, let me do what makes sense. I get that not every option can be predicted, but I hate the obvious misses.

I also hate when games treat a dialog choice like a 100% commitment. Maybe my character was lying, leading the NPC on or whatever. Just ran into this in Pillars of Eternity a couple days ago, where I told one faction I would help them without intending it to be a real commitment but suddenly all the other factions somehow know despite no physical action being taken, locking me into a choice. I hate when stuff like that happens.
For gameplay-focused JRPGs (my favorite type of RPG), there are some mechanics that come up near-universally in the genre (and many appear in RPGs that don't fit this distinction; a fair number are very common in party-based RPGs regardless of other characteristics) that I happen to dislike.

* Dead characters receive no XP. This is especially annoying (in games where bosses give XP) if this happens at the very end of the boss fight. (Random note: When I was playing Dragon Quest IX (one of the rare few RPGs to not have this issue, though it has others of its own), my main character was dead at the end of the final battle. She got XP (enough to level up, as it turns out, but you need to be alive to actually gain the level), and because she was important to the ending, the game revived her with 1 hit point. Hence, my clear save had a main character ready to gain a level, but who still had to fight a battle (any will do, as long as she survives) to actually level up.)

* Death cures everything. This is something that has never made much sense; if a character dies and is revived, all effects on the character are removed. (This actually makes it sometimes worth it to kill a character on purpose. It also has been the cause of an exploitable glitch in at least one game; in Baldur's Gate 2, if a character dies after casting Shapechange, the character permanently gets the spells's benefit.)

* Permanent missable items. I do not like missing something because I choose to proceed with the main story rather than exploring. To me, a player shouldn't be penalized just because she prefers to do things in a different order.

* Missable stats. This applies to any game where level ups are finite (in other words, there is some level cap, even if it's rather high) and where level ups either are random or can be influenced by some factor, and where there isn't an alternate way to make up for this. Final Fantasy 6 and 9 are offenders here; your stat gains at level up are affected by equipped espers (in FF6) or equipment (in FF9) at the time of level up. This isn't an issue if infinite stat boost items can be obtained (like in FF8 or Dragon Quest 3), or if you can always create new characters and there are no "special" characters. This is also why I prefer FF5's system to Final Fantasy Tactics's system.

* Unskippable cutscenes, of course.
avatar
Darvond: Forced stealth, especially if it's the kind that kicks you back to an arbitrary point instead of letting you fight or run.
This is actually a dealbreaker for me. Unless there is a way to skip the sequence or trivialize its difficulty, I will not play the game, and I will not buy the game if I hear about the sequence before hand.

Also, I thought of another:

* Skill point systems without easy respec. The problem here is that these force permanent decisions on the player, and making the decisions permanent discourages experimentation (experimentation being something I find fun) and can lead to a player being stuck due to have made bad decisions (or decisions that happen to suffer from balance issues making them unexpectedly bad)l.
Post edited May 03, 2018 by dtgreene
In base building RTS games (or just RTS games depending on your definition) - levels where you don't get to build a base, and in which you don't get to play with some sort of commando unit. That is, you are given a small collection of troops with which to do the level. It isn't always bad. Starcraft 1,2 Dawn of War, Warcraft 3 and even Warcraft 1 (those awesome cave levels) pull it off very well, but most others don't. Age of Empires in particular I find intolerable if I can't build a base :P
When things don't make sense. Take tomb raider, the newer one. I had a fully upgraded automatic rifle which I used for most of the game but at one point for a cutscene and for the plot, she switches to bow and arrow to attack 30+ enemies. What a great idea. It seems to be like it in several games and is very annoying, in far cry 5 (good game, nothing like zooming across the landscape In an attack helicopter with air wolf music going :o) you get drugged no less than 9 times, there is no sense at all to the storyline, just a mechanism to move you on which they don't seem to be able to merge into the gameplay.
bulletsponges
QTEs ruin games also, CB Jericho for instance.
I can deal with bad mechanics most of the time, but stories that back themselves into a corner and pull out the "reality-warping power of friendship and/or self-belief" card to magically resolve everything make me want to break something. There are few things more insulting than learning the rules of a world, only for all of them to be thrown out the window because some androgynous jagoff needs a deus ex machina.
In shooters I really hate it when they want to make the player identify with the character more by having your character never say anything. That would be a good idea, but then they totally ruin it by giving the character a face and a name. Sometimes it doesn't even work really. Like im supposed to be a super smart scientist or something, but whenever someone asks me a question I'm like "derp", but then the other guys just assume that I meant the correct response for some reason.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: QTEs ruin games also, CB Jericho for instance.
QTE made me stop replaying Tomb Raider 2013
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: QTEs ruin games also, CB Jericho for instance.
avatar
kusumahendra: QTE made me stop replaying Tomb Raider 2013
Yes, they weren't too bad in that, played it all the way through twice and only got mildly annoyed with it. But Jericho it totally ruined it.
Extreme grinding
too linear gameplay/story/areas
game crashing randomly....
avatar
amok: bulletsponges
Reminds me off Quake IV. It's an otherwise excellent game, but what really grinds my gears is that increasing the difficulty only appears to increase the enemies health. Having to shoot a certain strogg 4 times at close range with a shotgun instead of the usual 2 times is more difficult sure, but it damn well isn't any more fun or exciting. It's just plain annoying.
"Choice & consequence"

There are great games that employ the concept, really. But so many games have wasted development time ruining a story that would have worked best if it didn't awkwardy simulate choice and didn't give us several possible outcomes only one of which is really satisfying. Games that employ a simple binary good/compassionate vs. evil/selfish/badass scheme don't let us develop our own character, they mostly just give us two ways to play the game and reward us in spades for sticking to one side (KotoR, Mass Effect, etc.). The dillemma type choices have been all the rage lately, but they usually feel so damn artificially constructed while I'm quickly getting tired of choosing to eat one piece of shit over another, which is what a dillemma type situation usually is. Honestly, I could do with much less of this stuff in my games. That applies especially to Beyond Good & Evil 2. :|


"Quick Time Events"

One day, I want to meet the guy who, probably somewhen in the 80s, said "and at this point in the game, the player is supposed to mash some buttons as quickly as he can so he doesn't die". And I will punch him in his fucking face. It's immersion breaking, devoid of player skill, heavily relies on UI and frequently substitutes what could have been really good gameplay.
I hate drive sections. I hate to drive in videogames as much as I hate to drive in real life. I remember "El Shaddai", it was a beatiful game, then came th drive section. It was good and cool and all, but I was just sitting there thinking "Man, I really don't want to do this".





Also, I agree with a previous comment about how RPGs hardly give the option to lie.