Game Mechanics You Love/Hate

ExitPursuedByBear wrote:

Hate: the Towers of Hanoi puzzle and variants. I'm looking at you, Bioware.

Also hate: stealth missions you fail instantly when someone see you.

For stealth, isn't that the point of those missions?

Depends how they explain it, or if they manage it with game mechanics. The classic would be yelling on the radio that there's an intruder or hit an alarm panel, or you could disable them before that happens which only lasts until they're meant to check in or another guard finds them. Those are good ways to manage stealth, and not instant fails.

slazev wrote:
ExitPursuedByBear wrote:

Hate: the Towers of Hanoi puzzle and variants. I'm looking at you, Bioware.

Also hate: stealth missions you fail instantly when someone see you.

For stealth, isn't that the point of those missions?

I think MGS 4 did a good job of fixing the stealth problem. If you ever get discovered it is very easy to switch to run-n-gun mode.

Hate:
Extremely limited energy/mana for special abilities. See Deus Ex for reference. Super-agents shouldn't be limited to using their powers for a max of 10 seconds at a time.

Love:
Vehicle missions in SP FPS games. Any time I was manning a mounted gun in MW/MW2 is a good example of this. It gives some variety to the game, and breaks up the flow of missions.

SimCity-style base building in strategy games. Heroes of Might and Magic is an okay example, but lacks the creativity. Best example: MAX. You had to run power and resources, build roads, parking structures, etc.

I hate leveling up when it doesn't have any cool effects. There are times when I love it, like when it has a major impact on how my guy looks (Fable is awesome for this) or when it unlocks abilities that are completely game-changing and awesome. Whenever I play an RPG I always play as a mage, not because I hate fighters but because fighters tend to gain stats as they level up while there's always that hope that the mage is going to actually get something cool like being able to call down meteors from space or command thunderstorms with a wave of her hand.

Bioware games tend to be really nasty about making you have to consult a guide if you want to get cool stuff, since they tend to include a lot of character paths that are either boring or useless or both. JRPGs are usually pretty good about giving you godlike abilities as you get more powerful, usually no matter which class you play - in fact they often overdo it with the crazy animations on late-game spells, but as far as I'm concerned that's a better problem to have than being boring and utilitarian.

And don't even get me started about leveling systems invading multiplayer shooters. That trend is utterly worthless.

slazev wrote:
ExitPursuedByBear wrote:

Hate: the Towers of Hanoi puzzle and variants. I'm looking at you, Bioware.

Also hate: stealth missions you fail instantly when someone see you.

For stealth, isn't that the point of those missions?

I think it's referring more to the old type of stealth missions, which used to be a much bigger problem in old action games that would have one absolutely infuriating stealth section in an otherwise perfectly competent action game. The example that sticks out in my head is Jedi Knight II; there was one level that arbitrarily decided that the player couldn't get seen while sneaking through some sort of Imperial hangar, despite the fact that the player has been taking on forces of comparable size throughout the game. If someone presses an alarm, it's game over instantaneously — no option to fight your way out, just BAM, you're dead, go back to the start and try again. I'm really glad that these sorts of levels have more or less disappeared over the last decade or so.

I hate linear vehicle levels in FPS or action games. Why is the tank level there in Call of Duty: World at War? It's just a poorly made, far too lengthy minigame that really doesn't measure up to the rest of the experience. I guess Modern Warfare 2 did a better job with the snowmobile and zodiac levels, but that was just because they completely abandoned the concept of a vehicle section and instead just effectively had you going really fast down a straight line. For some reason, I really enjoy the rail shooter sections; the one where you're a gunner on an airplane was my favorite level of World at War.

I hate quick time events as they are usually implemented. It's sh*tty to be watching a cutscene and suddenly have to PRESS X TO NOT DIE; I don't see why QTEs couldn't be used to control a sword in a melee combat minigame, or to otherwise represent the character performing an action that they do regularly. Mass Effect isn't too far off with this; I can see some sort of connection between a QTE and hacking to unlock a crate, and it's not taking me by surprise.

Good Morning Blues wrote:

I hate quick time events as they are usually implemented. It's sh*tty to be watching a cutscene and suddenly have to PRESS X TO NOT DIE; I don't see why QTEs couldn't be used to control a sword in a melee combat minigame, or to otherwise represent the character performing an action that they do regularly. Mass Effect isn't too far off with this; I can see some sort of connection between a QTE and hacking to unlock a crate, and it's not taking me by surprise.

What I loved about the way Heavy Rain did QTEs was that if you f*cked up, that f*ckup would become canon to your story and the game would simply continue, rather than going back and getting it right. With that one decision, all the frustration of those damn things magically disappeared.

Good Morning Blues, thanks, I had forgotten that Jedi Knight level but that was exactly the problem I was thinking about.

Come to think of it, that exact problem is why I haven't ever finished Return to Castle Wolfenstein, despite having owned it for several years.

A game mechanic that I love: cover. I liked it best in Full Spectrum Warrior, but I'm having a lot of fun with it in Mass Effect, too. It really forces you to think about what you're doing in a firefight, and it makes for some really frantic action when you accidentally expose yourself or the AI manages to outmaneuver you. It also slows down the action, which I appreciate — I honestly prefer slower-paced combat to the balls-to-the-wall action of a Quake or Unreal.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
mrtomaytohead wrote:
Clemenstation wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Escort missions. Die, escort missions.

Yep. And yet, oddly, I really enjoyed Resident Evil 4 even though it's basically one long escort mission.

But at least you get to stuff Ashley in trash bins.

This. Every escort mission I can think of outside of Resident Evil 4, I loathe. This was probably the only game ever to get it right

Ico is one long escort mission, and it is marvellous. The problem is that games that don't make it a focus are invariably crap at it -- just like stealth missions are sh*t outside of games that make stealth a focus.

Never played Ico, but I really want to.

Hate: Mapping any controls ever to L3 or R3 on the ps3 controller, far too easy to accidentally activate them in the heat of the moment.

Really truly hate: Hard difficulty levels being locked until you've completed the game once on normal. As a rule I always want to play on the hardest setting as I like the challenge. And I've been playing games long enough that I don't need to play it on an easier setting to learn what's going on (with the possible exception of Ninja Gaiden). Additionally I rarely replay a games because most are not worth it or I've got new things to play. So if Hard is locked from the beginning I'm mostly never going to play it. Annoys me a little every time.

Love: The combat in Arkham Asylum, how satisfying was that?

As for better AI in games; what we have now isn't AI in the sense that everyone likes to imagine it. It's not much more than a couple of decision trees and a solid implementation of A*; beyond that there's not much more can be done without an unprecedented amount of time, man hours and expense and for today's games that effort isn't worth it for the really minor returns in the game. In the end of the day you can only code up the most likely and useful computer controlled actions and the kind of thing mechaslinky is asking for is just too close to implementing some kind of hard AI (the crotch high wall confusion is probably solvable mind).

DanB wrote:

(the crotch high wall confusion is probably solvable mind).

I want someone to solve whatever that problem is so that that my crotch can get high off walls.

I'm not expecting true AI any time soon, but some day I could see it happening. For now, some of the stuff I would like could be done well enough with some more complex decision trees, and I'm sure some of it has already been done to some extent in different kinds of games. Obviously, something like Tropico 3 is always assessing your leadership style, and the different factions react accordingly. Baldur's Gate even had something similar. Better AI could eventually to stuff like that that isn't as easily manipulated. Hell, it could solve the problem of morality systems in games. Instead of the developers setting a base morality that governs all, morality is unique to each character and blah blah blah I like rail shooter sections in games, especially in the Metal Gear games.

Hate - Re-spawning enemies and invisible continue on points, looking at you Call of Duty.

Boss battles where the battle isn't against smarter opponents just ones with more hit points or a weak spot that is the only place they take damage.

Gotcha game design where the game kills you in some fantastic fashion that there was no way to see coming causing a reload and a revised plan of attack now that you know what is coming.

Games that claim to be simulations then leave stuff out because it wouldn't be fun or even worse include a gamey element like a driving sim with a draft meter gauge.

Mechanics that claim you can play any way you like but what they really mean is you can be good or you can be bad but the story won't progress unless you choose one or the other.

Like - Unlike the OP I've enjoyed the right mouse button for iron sights since VietCong did it back in 2003, along with the pop up from cover I first discovered in that game.

Regenerating health vs health packs, in some games I want a more punishing health system but in most games I'm happy with the regenerating health.

FPS's that have a stick to cover mechanic like in the Rainbow Six Vegas games.

Love - Simple fight mechanics made to look much more impressive, Batman: AA had a crazy simple combat system that made it look like you were pulling off all these amazing different counters and attacks.

co-op games that force players to help the other players or die if they attempt to play as a lone wolf. L4D is a good example.

Certain RTS pathing. The fastest way between two points is not a straight line if there is impassable terrain between. And no, don't run back and forth forever. I need you there and I don't want to have to guide you the whole way there.

Hate - "Mainstream" RTSs. A few years back they started speeding up and simplifying RTSs to make them more "accessible." The 15-minute game of C&C3 was a marketing point.

I play RTSs because I like strategy. Not rushing.

Oh well, at least there's still Starcra- OH GOD ZERGLING RUSH

Hate: Harder difficulties where the only difference is they let the AI cheat.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Hate: Harder difficulties where the only difference is they let the AI cheat.

+100

For RTS games, I love the ability to micro-manage troops. Some of this comes from being a big Total War fan where I can command thousands of troops. But I also like games like DOW 2 where you have only a few squads but a lot of tactical options.

I hate resource gathering in RTSes. Seems pointless just to click on peons and assign them to vespene vents or elderberry bushes. Feels like I'm trapped in a Zynga game. Honestly, the resource gathering mechanic is the only thing I'm NOT looking forward to regarding Starcraft 2.

In shooters, I love being able to non-lethally shoot enemies. e.g., in RDR, you can shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot them in the leg if they're running away, which will trip them up and hamper their movement -- they may also just bleed out. In Far Cry 2, you can shoot enemies in the leg and wait for one of their allies to come help the wounded and kill both -- it becomes a tactic. This would be awesome applied to other games.

I also enjoy more realistic damage in shooters, where one (or two shots, max) can kill you or your enemies.

I love randomness and random encounters in open world games. I love being a part of a game world and not necessarily the centre of the game world. STALKER does this well; RDR, too.

After Red Faction: Guerilla and more recently BF:BC2, it's hard to play games without destructible environments -- I expect walls to collapse, cover to get destroyed.

I like when my character can climb on or over or into anything -- makes the world more real. Conversely, I hate when my character can't do any of these things.

I think it's already been mentioned, but I hate when alerted enemies automatically know precisely where you are and don't hesitate to charge right to that exact spot because an alarm of some sort has gone off.

In general, any game that rewards creativity and imagination (especially shooters) is a winner in my book.

Love: Being able to adjust the direction of rotation for third-person game cameras. The 360 does a great job of making my camera preference automatic for every adventure game. It used to take a few hours of play for me to get comfortable with the controls if I switched between two games that had different camera directions.

Hate: Walls or other structures that clearly look they should be able to be climbed or jumped over but can't. If you don't want me to go somewhere, just tweak the environment to make it clear I *can't* go that way. If I have super powers through most of the game, I should be able to climb a six-foot fence!

It's not really a game mechanic, but quicksave! I want more quicksave! Final Fantasy 13 has a generous number of save points strewn about, but why I can't simply save anywhere, even with just a quicksave option, is something I refuse to understand.

I don't mean quicksave like in PC games where you push a button and it saves. I'm talking about more like in the Fire Emblem games where, if you need to stop playing immediately, you can save at any point in a temporary save slot. Once the save is made, it quits the game, and once you load that save again the slot is emptied so you can't reset and load from that point. Perfect for games where the ability to save for reals anywhere would hurt the experience, but not being able to save anywhere would severely hamper the ability to play the game for short bursts. For any other kind of game, I just want to be able to save anywhere.

I hate the ability to not skip cutscenes, but I hate cutscenes that skip if you push a button because it's way too possible to accidentally push that button and accidentally skip a cutscene I want to watch. Especially if Start skips the cutscene, since there is definitely going to come a point in time when I want to pause the cutscene rather than skip it. I need to be able to pause the cutscene, and then skipping the cutscene should only be available when it's paused.

While we're at it, why can't I rewind and fast-forward cutscenes?

I love when there are a bunch of little things strewn about to collect and all you have to do is move within a certain distance and they automatically fly towards you. That makes me smile, partially because it makes collecting tiny things easier, but also because it's just fun to see. I don't know why.

Good Morning Blues wrote:

I hate quick time events as they are usually implemented. It's sh*tty to be watching a cutscene and suddenly have to PRESS X TO NOT DIE; I don't see why QTEs couldn't be used to control a sword in a melee combat minigame, or to otherwise represent the character performing an action that they do regularly. Mass Effect isn't too far off with this; I can see some sort of connection between a QTE and hacking to unlock a crate, and it's not taking me by surprise.

The first time I ran into QTEs was Force Unleashed. I'm sitting there hacking away and giant creatures and AT-STs with a lightsaber, doing all these cool things, then I have to start obsessively pushing B and Y at the exact right moment, so I'm leaning forward, staring at the part of the screen where the buttons pop up. Which, of course, means I couldn't watch my character slicing up the bad guys. Well, it's Force Unleashed, so bad and/or good guys, I guess. Still, if cool things are happening in the game, shouldn't I be able to, you know, actually watch them going on?

MechaSlinky wrote:

While we're at it, why can't I rewind and fast-forward cutscenes?

GPWM.

Love: Can I just put down the entirety of Super Mario Galaxy 2?

MechaSlinky wrote:

It's not really a game mechanic, but quicksave! I want more quicksave! Final Fantasy 13 has a generous number of save points strewn about, but why I can't simply save anywhere, even with just a quicksave option, is something I refuse to understand.

I don't mean quicksave like in PC games where you push a button and it saves. I'm talking about more like in the Fire Emblem games where, if you need to stop playing immediately, you can save at any point in a temporary save slot. Once the save is made, it quits the game, and once you load that save again the slot is emptied so you can't reset and load from that point. Perfect for games where the ability to save for reals anywhere would hurt the experience, but not being able to save anywhere would severely hamper the ability to play the game for short bursts. For any other kind of game, I just want to be able to save anywhere.

This is quickly becoming my favorite save game system, actually. New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Resonance of Fate, and Sakura Wars all have variations on this, and I feel that it adds to the experience. There's a degree of tension in knowing that you're venturing out on a limb the further you get from your last save, but you can also save and quit at any time without having to backtrack. It's a good compromise between save points and save anywhere.

For game experience, I'd say having a well done checkpoint and autosave system would be better than "press F5 to have no negative consequences to your mistakes". Don't get me wrong, being able to save at any give point is great, but the action of pressing a button every 30s before something potentially nasty happens or you have a chance of making the wrong choice just brings me out of the game. In my mind a well done checkpoint and autosave system would let you pick meaningful points to start throughout every level you've completed so you don't have to slog your way to a cool bit you want to replay through. The autosave would be a rolling save when you're in a safe situation and before tackling challenges, you don't have to worry about having to hit F5 at the right or wrong time, or forgetting to do it and covering too much old ground that wasn't what killed you as it's all handled in the background. The example of doing it right would be the Halo series.

Two of 'em for now:

I love the reload mechanic in the Gears of War series. Love it.

I also love the aforementioned destruction in Red Faction and the Battlefield Bad Company series.

Did I mention how much the Gears reload rocks?

firesloth wrote:

I love the reload mechanic in the Gears of War series. Love it.

Agreed. By giving you a bonus for paying attention it just gives that tiny bit of extra motivation to pay attention to the mechanic.

There's something really satisfying about nailing the timing.

I don't like timed missions that result in failure. It's not that I can't get past them, but they are just a turn-off. I think I am just a 'my pace' kinda gamer.

I can't stand respawning enemies done poorly. I know some will think this a contradiction, but I love how it is handled in the CoD series. There is a mechanic to it, its not infinite though it can give that impression to a new player. Once you see how the mechanic works you can manipulate it.

I need a clear autosave / save mechanic/system in regards to how the two systems interact or don't. Games that confuse me with how the autosave is done and force me to figure out if my manual save is the latest or the autosave annoys me to the point that I put down games. Darksiders was confusing, I had to put it down. Just Cause 2 initially seemed confusing too, though I think I will just save manually and not worry about.

I think Doom 3 was the game that made me realize how much I hate monster closets. I'm not sure that counts as a mechanic though, maybe that is level design.

Hate: the Warthog in Halo 1

Love: party banter in Dragon Age