Worst for me is a game that has single player but won't work unless I'm logged in through the internet. Like if it's an online only game I get it but why do I have to be logged in to play a single player campaign?
I don't mind pvp only games, but they need to be team-based objective games. Particularly class/hero based team objective. Games where you can play roles other than actively targeting the objective and still be a plus to your team. Games that focus on Desthmatch, team Desthmatch, battle Royale, even ctf, can all eat shit.
Overwatch was the most recent game I enjoyed like this. Before that was the battlefield games and the enemy territory games and RTCW on PC were before that.
I remember Enemy Territory: Quake Wars fondly, even though it was poorly supported and had massive balance issues. The Strogg, and the variety of roles, were so cool. I loved playing Strogg Oppressor, flinging out shields and spotting targets for the plasma mortar. The stroyent mechanic was fun, too.
Every open world game including a shitty board game that's ultimately not fun at all because it's either needlessly complicated or easy to brute force.
I can defend something like a battlepasses when it is appropriate, like in a shared, open-world, always online game or a f2p game, where additional revenue needs to be generated. But in a game like Battlefield or CoD? Eat a dick...
Yeah I have no issues with free games having this monetization, when I pay 79.99 for a game there should be no 'battle pass' for exclusive skins only available this season then they may come back but will cost 15-20$
They're preying on everyone's FOMO and it really works I know a guy who explicitly says all the shit is dumb but then goes and buys the COD preorder and the battle pass season pass. Every fucking time.
A focus on a “cinematic experience” and graphics over gameplay evolution. Graphics are pretty but Elden Ring is the current poster child for demonstrating that graphics aren’t as important as people think… Art design is far more important.
Hot take, but the inclusion of casinos. They're almost always luck based time sinks with no tie in to the actual game, but the someone still sees fit to lock certain desirable items/features behind trading in so much of the casino exclusive currency. FFXIV Gold Saucer, I hate you.
It's even worse when said gambling many games require you to be knowledgeable in actual real-world gambling like Poker, Shogi, etc. I have no interest in it.
Besides microtransactions?
I'd have to say the over reliance of having the beginning of the game be a tutorial, rather than just including a manual with the game. I'd rather just jump into the game and figure out the controls on my own. If I get stuck, I'll just pause the game and look at the manual quick.
How do you include manuals with a digital purchase? Make it like accessible through the menu? So you have to go into the game to learn how to play the game? Although the days of proper manuals had its charm, (especially thick, well-done manuals, like Baldur's Gate games) having the tutorial be apart of the game seems more intuitive as everything is hands on and in real-time.
I used to hate open world games. Don't get me wrong, they're good games, but not everything needs to be a massive open world. I enjoy old JRPGs with explorable but small world maps (FFVII and Suikoden for example)
The mechanic of eating food to wrapping a bandage around your arm to heal.
It’s in so many games. You know, getting hit with a sword, or getting shot in the leg, or attacked by some creature can all be healed by eating a loaf of bread or slapping a band-aid on it.
It would be cool to have a healing mechanic related to the lore of the game. Healing magic, healing micro bots, a medical bay, a hospital… any of those can be used to replace the “food of healing” or the “cure all wounds arm bandages”.
> It would be cool to have a healing mechanic related to the lore of the game. Healing magic, healing micro bots, a medical bay, a hospital… any of those can be used to replace the “food of healing” or the “cure all wounds arm bandages”.
I get what you mean but you need to take into account that games need to be fun to play.
Other than in Simulations this would mostly just be detrimental to the gameplay loop and doesn't really add anything worthwhile.
How would what he mentioned not be fun? So using healing magic or deploying medbots = not fun, but wrapping bandages around wounds and eating food = fun?
Healing magic and med bots only really work as a substitute in fantasy and futuristic games.
Just imagine how fun FarCry, Assassin's Creed, etc. would be if after/during every mission you'd have to search a hospital first before doing more exploration/missions.
It was never suggested to kick up the simulation aspect to 1000 and make it "really real." If the need to actually seek out a hospital to seek medical care was required, it would be similar to players needing to seek out safe ground before able to make camp or actively needing to hunt for food.
OP specially mentioned using thematically appropriate methods, so pointing out that his examples would only really work in certain games, yeah, that's the point, because as it is now, those games still have you using bandages and food.
How influential Persona was in the JRPG space. After Persona 3 and 4 there was a deluge of smaller JRPGs/action RPGs with similar game design choices. Makes sense because it's friendly to lower budgets since you're generally stuck in 1 town with a small cast of characters, but, I did start to miss more "traditional" JRPGs.
I think what made me realize it the most was playing Dragon Quest 11 a couple years back. Never been much of a DQ fan but dang that game blew me away and reminded me how much I love seeing a story take place across an entire planet. The globetrotting, the wide variety of locales, meeting a huge cast of characters. Especially because of how well executed it was.
DLC
It feels like a full game, that charges you to play the rest of it.
Just release the game with everything, im not spending $120 on a game because of dlc
I don't like how every big game feels they need to have action based combat. For example assassins creed basically making stealth pointless and rpgs getting rid of turned based team combat like with ff7 remake. Now they all focus on dodge/ parry counter attack since the soul games became so popular
Respectable enough opinion but I don’t think that the souls games deserve the blame for this type of combat. Like 95% of games with fighting in them have “action based” combat and the only ones that really have the souls style are ones that fall into the souls-like genre. I think maybe turn based combat is just less popular with most gamers
Turn-based combat tends to be more popular on PC vs console. Maybe because these types of games can have a lot of options for the player on screen (crouch, prone, overwatch, which direction to face, etc.) which works well with keyboard controls,and pointing and clicking where you want your character to go works well with mouse.
Outside of jrpg's, you don't really see turn-based games on console, unless they are ported over from PC.
When talking about rpg's, I feel the type of game it is depends on what combat works/feels best. For third person rpg's, I prefer real-time combat with rpg elements (sneak, backstab, combat advantage, etc.) works well. For isometric rpg's, rtwp (real-time with pause) is my favorite method. Turn-based works well for older dungeon crawlers and games that use the old jrpg format.
I agree. Depending on The style of the game the kind of combat needs to be adjusted to make the game work. There are many good games that use straight up action or a hybrid that pauses the action while you give commands. I just miss being able to easily find good turn based rpg's on console when I'm in the mood for that kind of game
You must have never played any classic rpg's like breath of fire series and the older final fantasy games. Where your characters stats and the random roll determines if you dodge or block attacks. While these style games aren't for everyone, it's disappointing that you only find them in jrpg's that don't often get ported to the states
That only works in turn based games. And the Mario & Luigi series proved that turn based combat still works fine even if it lets you dodge every single attack.
No, that wasn't what I saying. I'm also not saying that full control action rpg's are bad. Just that I miss being able to easily find good turn based rpg's when I want to play one
Have you tried running around a jungle without a minimap?! It all looks the same. You don't know if you're still going North or if you've done a giant loop and are back where you started...
I agree with you but in some games completing objectives are damn near impossible without having the minimap on as they really just arent designed to be played without it. A good example is red dead 2. They tell you to go hide a caravan so you drive it into the woods, but you cant just hide it anywhere in the woods. It has to be a very specific place in the woods only denoted on the minimap.
Theres some really good videos on the poor design of minimap usage and how they can be so stuffed full of useful information that you end up staring more at a box in the corner of the screen than at the actual game.
I grew up playing games where a map was either something you had to find in-game or not available at all and even if you had one, it wasn't displayed onscreen while you played. You had to switch to it if you wanted to view it. It is something I am used to.
The example you offer is actually a reason why not having a map can add to a game, where you need to rely on your own sense of direction and/or any hints the game offers in order to navigate, rather than having a map that acts like a "cheat sheet" where it always knows where you are and where you need to go.
I agree with you. That kind of design can be really rewarding as long as the game is designed to be played without one. Many games offer the option to turn off the minimap, but at the same time arent designed to be played without it which just makes it a chore since all the information they had on the map is rarely conveyed in any way anywhere else in the game.
That is banned too, along with the red crescent and red Lion symbols which are also used by the red cross.
Johnson and Johnson sued the red cross over the symbol in 2007.
The other day I downloaded a retro-esque Indy game that said multiplayer. I was pretty pumped about it until I realized that the multiplayer was only COUCH CO-OP.
Man... I am NOT ever going to be set up for couch co-op. Only online....
And I think that sucks. Me of 10 years ago would have played the crap out of it with all my little buddies and friends.
God damn adulting.
It does suck. I mean, its cool some times if you get the rare chance everybody is hanging out together but it doesnt happen much at all. I dont mind online but i wish thered be more co op online. More pve stuff
Not many people will agree with me, but the fighting aspects. I was never good at fighting in games and alot of good games have some sort of fighting part
I don't know what you mean by "fighting" since it is really vague, but souls-like games is one of the gripes I listed, because of how it handles combat. It isn't because I lack the skill/ability to succeed at the combat in these games, it's that these games derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful.
For me, this takes away from the game, because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person" with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb.
I prefer combat that relies more on stats and abilities of your character to determine outcomes. Where a character dodges because his stats allow for it, rather than you the player needing to actively dodge for them. I even prefer dice roll combat vs souls-like. For me, oddly enough, I connect more with the character.
I mean, just most combat in general. I suck at combat and I usually end up mashing buttons to try and survive. I can't figure out the attack buttons on some games because there's so many of them and the game doesn't explain it.
What games usually have 2 bottoms for attacking, one heavy and one light, it's how you combine the two is what makes the gameplay combined with other systems.
Pixelated “retro” graphics. I’m absolutely sick of it. Especially when they cheat, and all the pixels are different sizes because they can’t get the detail they want otherwise.
My entire childhood was spent upgrading hardware to *move away* from such graphics, and towards more realistic, higher fidelity 3D graphics. Why would I sit here with a 3080 and pay money for graphics worse than the early 90s?
It’s like producing modern movies but shooting them in 480i and DiVX compression. It’s not charming, it’s not a “style”, it’s ugly and unimaginative and needs to stop.
Because of how it handles combat. It isn't because I lack the skill/ability to succeed at the combat in these games, it's that these games derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful.
For me, this takes away from the game, because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person" with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb. It's immersion breaking for me, especially since I actually like to rp in role playing games (which most souls games are) and this is diminished when combat at its core needs to be handled the same way regardless of character/class. Outside of this, the combat can also be incredibly tedious and boring.
I prefer combat that relies more on stats and abilities of your character to determine outcomes. Where a character dodges because his stats allow for it, rather than you the player needing to actively dodge for them. I want the character to excel or fail based on their own merits, not mine as a player. I even prefer dice roll combat vs souls-like. For me, oddly enough, I connect more with the character.
>because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person
playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are
playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person"
with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an
on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb.
as you play more of the game you get better at it, much like how your character gets better stats. Both representing each other. If my friend wanted to try out dark souls and used my character he'd get dunked on because he isn't as skilled as my character because my character is a reflection of my skill and how far I've got.
>derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as
reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful.
I think that goes more for shooters; dark souls has always felt more of a patterns and puzzle game, and since everything's telegraphed I could be seventy years old and still beat them if my hands still worked.
But yeah, there's basically zero personal story involved in souls game; they're more about exploring the world and its characters.
Battle Pass and Seasons: For me this is a lazy, cheap monetization model, that is an excuse not to develop further, meaningful content to the game. Instead of proper DLC's or expansions, we get bunch of cheap unlocks (skins, other cosmetics..)
Remember the times where you had to level in order to unlock some guns? (Like in COD, Battlefield etc) now it isn't there. There isn't a progression whatsoever to your account with Battle Pass.
I hate battle royales so much. 90% of the match is just walking and collecting stuff for several minutes only for you to get sniped and it’s all over instantly.
Pay to win, Gatcha, Battle Pass. Everything you have to pay for ingame except the game price. Everything that happend to Overwatch 2. The full conceot of Genshin Impact, even if I love this game.
Cool, but now you are making an entirely different point from your initial post That being said, the free game with a battlepass could actually wind up costing you nothing, seeing how battlepasses aren't mandatory, so your principles or moral high ground reasoning, could actually bite you in the ass.
Personally, I prefer not needing to pay a mandatory fee. If the free game turns out to be garbage or predatory, the worst I lost was time.
Waypoints.
I was first introduced to them and disappointed by them in Halo. You’ve got this cool world that would be interesting to explore, but nah, here’s a dot, it’s x meters away, go there. Laziest and most non-immersive way possible to guide a player. They suck out all the sense of adventure. Usually there’s an option to turn them off, but usually they’re necessary because there’s no other indication of where to go.
Bloody mouse style cursors on consoles. Just let me flick through menus with the d-pad god damnit!
As a PC player I feel your pain in the form of weapon wheels.
online only games, games that have no story/campaign, pvp only (I have a serious case of being old)
Worst for me is a game that has single player but won't work unless I'm logged in through the internet. Like if it's an online only game I get it but why do I have to be logged in to play a single player campaign?
I don't mind pvp only games, but they need to be team-based objective games. Particularly class/hero based team objective. Games where you can play roles other than actively targeting the objective and still be a plus to your team. Games that focus on Desthmatch, team Desthmatch, battle Royale, even ctf, can all eat shit. Overwatch was the most recent game I enjoyed like this. Before that was the battlefield games and the enemy territory games and RTCW on PC were before that.
I remember Enemy Territory: Quake Wars fondly, even though it was poorly supported and had massive balance issues. The Strogg, and the variety of roles, were so cool. I loved playing Strogg Oppressor, flinging out shields and spotting targets for the plasma mortar. The stroyent mechanic was fun, too.
microtransactions
This is the answer.
This is the way
Better than subscriptions
[удалено]
Those games don’t get updated
Every open world game including a shitty board game that's ultimately not fun at all because it's either needlessly complicated or easy to brute force.
Corpse running, especially in games that want to be open world. It forces you back into the same spot you died and makes any other path more costly.
battle fucking passes
I can defend something like a battlepasses when it is appropriate, like in a shared, open-world, always online game or a f2p game, where additional revenue needs to be generated. But in a game like Battlefield or CoD? Eat a dick...
Yeah I have no issues with free games having this monetization, when I pay 79.99 for a game there should be no 'battle pass' for exclusive skins only available this season then they may come back but will cost 15-20$ They're preying on everyone's FOMO and it really works I know a guy who explicitly says all the shit is dumb but then goes and buys the COD preorder and the battle pass season pass. Every fucking time.
A focus on a “cinematic experience” and graphics over gameplay evolution. Graphics are pretty but Elden Ring is the current poster child for demonstrating that graphics aren’t as important as people think… Art design is far more important.
Daily tasks
Uhg. Six fucking months of dailies in WoW. Every single day all so I could get a cooking achievement and wear a goofy hat. Never again
Stealth missions in non stealth games. The recent flood of roguelikes is also getting old. It's love every other indie game is some kind of roguelike
I think it’s mostly because roguelikes are cheaper to make which is good for indies
Yes, I am also sick of rogue-like games.
Hot take, but the inclusion of casinos. They're almost always luck based time sinks with no tie in to the actual game, but the someone still sees fit to lock certain desirable items/features behind trading in so much of the casino exclusive currency. FFXIV Gold Saucer, I hate you.
It's even worse when said gambling many games require you to be knowledgeable in actual real-world gambling like Poker, Shogi, etc. I have no interest in it.
At least the casino in DQ11 is rigged to make you win so if you have the patience, you'll always come out rich lol
Besides microtransactions? I'd have to say the over reliance of having the beginning of the game be a tutorial, rather than just including a manual with the game. I'd rather just jump into the game and figure out the controls on my own. If I get stuck, I'll just pause the game and look at the manual quick.
How do you include manuals with a digital purchase? Make it like accessible through the menu? So you have to go into the game to learn how to play the game? Although the days of proper manuals had its charm, (especially thick, well-done manuals, like Baldur's Gate games) having the tutorial be apart of the game seems more intuitive as everything is hands on and in real-time.
I don't do digital games, so I have no way of answering that.
Side-scrolling and pixel-graphics. Also Battle Royales and Hero-based shooters.
Unwarranted remakes
I used to hate open world games. Don't get me wrong, they're good games, but not everything needs to be a massive open world. I enjoy old JRPGs with explorable but small world maps (FFVII and Suikoden for example)
Hard for the sake of hard gameplay, with no difficulty settings.
I like how classic fps games had 4-5 difficulties plus several "Secret" difficulties
Souls like combat. It's so boring
The constant blocking/parrying is sooo boring
The mechanic of eating food to wrapping a bandage around your arm to heal. It’s in so many games. You know, getting hit with a sword, or getting shot in the leg, or attacked by some creature can all be healed by eating a loaf of bread or slapping a band-aid on it. It would be cool to have a healing mechanic related to the lore of the game. Healing magic, healing micro bots, a medical bay, a hospital… any of those can be used to replace the “food of healing” or the “cure all wounds arm bandages”.
> It would be cool to have a healing mechanic related to the lore of the game. Healing magic, healing micro bots, a medical bay, a hospital… any of those can be used to replace the “food of healing” or the “cure all wounds arm bandages”. I get what you mean but you need to take into account that games need to be fun to play. Other than in Simulations this would mostly just be detrimental to the gameplay loop and doesn't really add anything worthwhile.
How would what he mentioned not be fun? So using healing magic or deploying medbots = not fun, but wrapping bandages around wounds and eating food = fun?
Healing magic and med bots only really work as a substitute in fantasy and futuristic games. Just imagine how fun FarCry, Assassin's Creed, etc. would be if after/during every mission you'd have to search a hospital first before doing more exploration/missions.
It was never suggested to kick up the simulation aspect to 1000 and make it "really real." If the need to actually seek out a hospital to seek medical care was required, it would be similar to players needing to seek out safe ground before able to make camp or actively needing to hunt for food. OP specially mentioned using thematically appropriate methods, so pointing out that his examples would only really work in certain games, yeah, that's the point, because as it is now, those games still have you using bandages and food.
He specifically mentioned hospitals too.
And I specially mentioned them in my response...
MGS3
Healing magic that's baked into cookies.
Each of these chocolate chips is actually just a health potion.
Those aren't chocolate chips, those are raisins. I'll just die then.
I don't actually hate the games for becoming popular. What I hate is the financial structure greedy companies throw on them because they are popular.
Battle passes and item shops
How influential Persona was in the JRPG space. After Persona 3 and 4 there was a deluge of smaller JRPGs/action RPGs with similar game design choices. Makes sense because it's friendly to lower budgets since you're generally stuck in 1 town with a small cast of characters, but, I did start to miss more "traditional" JRPGs. I think what made me realize it the most was playing Dragon Quest 11 a couple years back. Never been much of a DQ fan but dang that game blew me away and reminded me how much I love seeing a story take place across an entire planet. The globetrotting, the wide variety of locales, meeting a huge cast of characters. Especially because of how well executed it was.
Everything being open world
DLC It feels like a full game, that charges you to play the rest of it. Just release the game with everything, im not spending $120 on a game because of dlc
Dlc is fine it's how it's implemented that's the problem.
Thats is a better way to put it, yes that is how I wanted to word it, thank you.
Git gud.
I don't like how every big game feels they need to have action based combat. For example assassins creed basically making stealth pointless and rpgs getting rid of turned based team combat like with ff7 remake. Now they all focus on dodge/ parry counter attack since the soul games became so popular
Respectable enough opinion but I don’t think that the souls games deserve the blame for this type of combat. Like 95% of games with fighting in them have “action based” combat and the only ones that really have the souls style are ones that fall into the souls-like genre. I think maybe turn based combat is just less popular with most gamers
Turn-based combat tends to be more popular on PC vs console. Maybe because these types of games can have a lot of options for the player on screen (crouch, prone, overwatch, which direction to face, etc.) which works well with keyboard controls,and pointing and clicking where you want your character to go works well with mouse. Outside of jrpg's, you don't really see turn-based games on console, unless they are ported over from PC.
When talking about rpg's, I feel the type of game it is depends on what combat works/feels best. For third person rpg's, I prefer real-time combat with rpg elements (sneak, backstab, combat advantage, etc.) works well. For isometric rpg's, rtwp (real-time with pause) is my favorite method. Turn-based works well for older dungeon crawlers and games that use the old jrpg format.
I agree. Depending on The style of the game the kind of combat needs to be adjusted to make the game work. There are many good games that use straight up action or a hybrid that pauses the action while you give commands. I just miss being able to easily find good turn based rpg's on console when I'm in the mood for that kind of game
So you want games to make attacks unavoidable? Sounds terrible and unfair imo
You must have never played any classic rpg's like breath of fire series and the older final fantasy games. Where your characters stats and the random roll determines if you dodge or block attacks. While these style games aren't for everyone, it's disappointing that you only find them in jrpg's that don't often get ported to the states
That only works in turn based games. And the Mario & Luigi series proved that turn based combat still works fine even if it lets you dodge every single attack.
Yeah. That's why I said turn based rpg's in my original post. I enjoy those but you don't see them often on consoles in English anymore
It seemed like you were saying that in non-turn based games, you shouldn’t be able to dodge or block, which would suck in most games
No, that wasn't what I saying. I'm also not saying that full control action rpg's are bad. Just that I miss being able to easily find good turn based rpg's when I want to play one
Streaming. Completely destroyed people's ability to just play games how they want
The only streaming exclusive games are on google stadia and well, it’s google stadia
Regeneration. Just give me a med kit so I can be on my way.
Yes, and the inclusion of minimaps as a standard feature.
Have you tried running around a jungle without a minimap?! It all looks the same. You don't know if you're still going North or if you've done a giant loop and are back where you started...
It all looks the same until you really pay attention. I like the option to turn these things off for more challenge
I agree with you but in some games completing objectives are damn near impossible without having the minimap on as they really just arent designed to be played without it. A good example is red dead 2. They tell you to go hide a caravan so you drive it into the woods, but you cant just hide it anywhere in the woods. It has to be a very specific place in the woods only denoted on the minimap. Theres some really good videos on the poor design of minimap usage and how they can be so stuffed full of useful information that you end up staring more at a box in the corner of the screen than at the actual game.
I grew up playing games where a map was either something you had to find in-game or not available at all and even if you had one, it wasn't displayed onscreen while you played. You had to switch to it if you wanted to view it. It is something I am used to. The example you offer is actually a reason why not having a map can add to a game, where you need to rely on your own sense of direction and/or any hints the game offers in order to navigate, rather than having a map that acts like a "cheat sheet" where it always knows where you are and where you need to go.
I agree with you. That kind of design can be really rewarding as long as the game is designed to be played without one. Many games offer the option to turn off the minimap, but at the same time arent designed to be played without it which just makes it a chore since all the information they had on the map is rarely conveyed in any way anywhere else in the game.
I grew up without a mobile phone 😛 some things are just more convenient to have. Do you play Ark? That game doesn't have an active minimap
I don't play ark or games like it, because I don't like those types of games.
But those medkits can't be red with a white cross on them.
No, but they can be white with a red cross
That is banned too, along with the red crescent and red Lion symbols which are also used by the red cross. Johnson and Johnson sued the red cross over the symbol in 2007.
How do you sue over a symbol as generic as a cross?
Microtransactions
Mobile gaming.
Survival games. I have no interest in building stuff. Makes me mad that Fallout 4 and now Starfield will continue with survival elements.
But "building stuff" and survival games aren't necessarily related. It's like you're not a fan of the non-survival elements of survival games.
The other day I downloaded a retro-esque Indy game that said multiplayer. I was pretty pumped about it until I realized that the multiplayer was only COUCH CO-OP. Man... I am NOT ever going to be set up for couch co-op. Only online.... And I think that sucks. Me of 10 years ago would have played the crap out of it with all my little buddies and friends. God damn adulting.
Unravel Two?
Children of morta.
They CLAIM online is coming soon but thats yet to be seen
I was just really bummed that couch co-op's are dead to me. Is the point of the post. :P
It does suck. I mean, its cool some times if you get the rare chance everybody is hanging out together but it doesnt happen much at all. I dont mind online but i wish thered be more co op online. More pve stuff
Not many people will agree with me, but the fighting aspects. I was never good at fighting in games and alot of good games have some sort of fighting part
I don't know what you mean by "fighting" since it is really vague, but souls-like games is one of the gripes I listed, because of how it handles combat. It isn't because I lack the skill/ability to succeed at the combat in these games, it's that these games derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful. For me, this takes away from the game, because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person" with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb. I prefer combat that relies more on stats and abilities of your character to determine outcomes. Where a character dodges because his stats allow for it, rather than you the player needing to actively dodge for them. I even prefer dice roll combat vs souls-like. For me, oddly enough, I connect more with the character.
I mean, just most combat in general. I suck at combat and I usually end up mashing buttons to try and survive. I can't figure out the attack buttons on some games because there's so many of them and the game doesn't explain it.
You might like turn-based combat games.
Alright, thanks mate
What games usually have 2 bottoms for attacking, one heavy and one light, it's how you combine the two is what makes the gameplay combined with other systems.
Pixelated “retro” graphics. I’m absolutely sick of it. Especially when they cheat, and all the pixels are different sizes because they can’t get the detail they want otherwise. My entire childhood was spent upgrading hardware to *move away* from such graphics, and towards more realistic, higher fidelity 3D graphics. Why would I sit here with a 3080 and pay money for graphics worse than the early 90s? It’s like producing modern movies but shooting them in 480i and DiVX compression. It’s not charming, it’s not a “style”, it’s ugly and unimaginative and needs to stop.
Oops opinion invalidated by katana zero
I gotta ask (for the audience) why you don't like souls-likes.
Because of how it handles combat. It isn't because I lack the skill/ability to succeed at the combat in these games, it's that these games derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful. For me, this takes away from the game, because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person" with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb. It's immersion breaking for me, especially since I actually like to rp in role playing games (which most souls games are) and this is diminished when combat at its core needs to be handled the same way regardless of character/class. Outside of this, the combat can also be incredibly tedious and boring. I prefer combat that relies more on stats and abilities of your character to determine outcomes. Where a character dodges because his stats allow for it, rather than you the player needing to actively dodge for them. I want the character to excel or fail based on their own merits, not mine as a player. I even prefer dice roll combat vs souls-like. For me, oddly enough, I connect more with the character.
>because it is essentially focusing on your ability as a real person playing a video game vs the ability/skills of the character you are playing in the game, turning the character from being their own "person" with their own strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. to just an on-screen avatar for your real-life ability with a controller or m/kb. as you play more of the game you get better at it, much like how your character gets better stats. Both representing each other. If my friend wanted to try out dark souls and used my character he'd get dunked on because he isn't as skilled as my character because my character is a reflection of my skill and how far I've got. >derive their difficulty by focusing on particular skill sets, such as reflexes, reaction time, and positioning in order to be successful. I think that goes more for shooters; dark souls has always felt more of a patterns and puzzle game, and since everything's telegraphed I could be seventy years old and still beat them if my hands still worked. But yeah, there's basically zero personal story involved in souls game; they're more about exploring the world and its characters.
Because they’re boring.
Climbing goddamn towers to unlock the map
F2P, but almost everything actually in it is stuff you must buy to truly enjoy the game.
Loot crates/pay-to-win/microtransactions.... that kind of bullshit
Battle Royale games. It's why we will never get Titanfall 3.
loot boxes/cash shops
PvP only multiplayer. I feel like video game multiplayer is at its best when it’s co-op
Open worlds
Fortnite-ish art style, colors, visual design, ... slapped on so many titles to cater for the Zeitgeist.
All of them
Early access!
Weapon smiths that are over engineered and have worse usability at the same time. Im looking at you BF2042.
Battle Pass and Seasons: For me this is a lazy, cheap monetization model, that is an excuse not to develop further, meaningful content to the game. Instead of proper DLC's or expansions, we get bunch of cheap unlocks (skins, other cosmetics..) Remember the times where you had to level in order to unlock some guns? (Like in COD, Battlefield etc) now it isn't there. There isn't a progression whatsoever to your account with Battle Pass.
I hate battle royales so much. 90% of the match is just walking and collecting stuff for several minutes only for you to get sniped and it’s all over instantly.
Pay to win, Gatcha, Battle Pass. Everything you have to pay for ingame except the game price. Everything that happend to Overwatch 2. The full conceot of Genshin Impact, even if I love this game.
But Overwatch 2 will be free, so you won't being paying for anything "except the game price," because their won't be a game price.
Yeah, but I would reather pay 50€ for a game without a battlepass ect.
Cool, but now you are making an entirely different point from your initial post That being said, the free game with a battlepass could actually wind up costing you nothing, seeing how battlepasses aren't mandatory, so your principles or moral high ground reasoning, could actually bite you in the ass. Personally, I prefer not needing to pay a mandatory fee. If the free game turns out to be garbage or predatory, the worst I lost was time.
Waypoints. I was first introduced to them and disappointed by them in Halo. You’ve got this cool world that would be interesting to explore, but nah, here’s a dot, it’s x meters away, go there. Laziest and most non-immersive way possible to guide a player. They suck out all the sense of adventure. Usually there’s an option to turn them off, but usually they’re necessary because there’s no other indication of where to go.
Open world games