Video Game mechanics to retire

[Ben X]

*waits for hedgefield to respond*

[benArcen]

Regarding morality systems...

 

I think the problem is what was described in previous posts on the subject of modern games that feature these systems. Just so it's known, I like these systems at time like in the Mass Effect games. However, I honestly can't say that I felt very much that my choices were not really all that meaningful because I felt that as if  I was just choosing from a list someone else had already chose as appropriate. Usually I chose from the options based on the choices available instead of any rationale or decision making process.

 

What I'm getting at is that these types of games don't really have a morality system but more like reaction systems. It's fake decision making which is what makes games that feature truly emergent gameplay so interesting. The designer, writer, or one of the devs already made all the decisions while designing the game. I feel like this is what makes the standard morality system feel cheap and dated.

 

As far as an alternative? I feel like one way to accomplish this is to keep the player in the dark as to how their decisions are actually influencing the game. This would require that the player to be ignorant of the system's logic. This will take away the feeling of not having to make true and meaningful choices and leaves the door open for feelings of regret or pride based on previous choices made which are very strong emotions for a video game to be able to tug at. Mass Effect did this in a strange way, based on your decisions,

certain people lived or died

. The problem is that it felt like a lottery at best. My choices didn't really have that much meaning, it was a domino effect. At a certain point in the chain I didn't really feel like my having helped a stripper had anything to do with whether someone lived or died months later...

 

Also, I agree the dialog tree doesn't help to make me feel like I'm making meaningful decisions. Maybe separating the dialog from the morality system somehow would feel better. The morality system could be manipulated according to how the player makes use of environmental interaction and action based mechanics rather then sentence selection. Assuming that these mechanics allow for their usage to be diverse enough to either mask their affect on the game or they are so versatile that it would be difficult for any one player to map usage to result, maybe it could work.

[Vasari]

I've only played an hour or two of Remember Me so far, but I really like it.

 

What I don't like is stepping out of the way of a large enemy who's charging at you, then hitting him in the back while he's stunned from running into the wall.

 

I especially don't like doing this three times.

[darthbator]

I think those sort of traditional combat design patterns can still be executed on super cleanly and enjoyably. The new Devil May Cry game has an enemy that does exactly what you are talking about (with the charge/avoid pattern) but the abilities dante has as well as the additional enemies in those encounters seems to add an additional layer of interest on top of the sort of traditional avoid and stomp 3 times routine.

[CaptainFish]

One thing I remember specifically not liking was used a lot in Darksiders 2: using random loot and progression in what should generally just be a mechanics/skill based game. In that game, you always come across dungeons with harder challenges than the one you're supposed to go to. If you enter these dungeons you'll find you're much too under-leveled and under-equipped to deal with them. Why? Put that part physically after the story based part, or better yet, base the difficulty in your character action game on the ability to use mechanics and unlock abilities and weapon choices, not just higher numbers of damage. In general, I'm pretty tired of picking up random loot with numbers that generally go up over time, because it means you're usually not making a decision based on build, but just on dps. If you find an axe with twice the damage of your whip, you'll use the axe even if you prefer whip based gameplay or take twice as long to kill the twice as tough enemies in the area you're in.  I think I'd prefer if the DPS stat was static or tied to core progression, and you only made decisions based on additional effects or playstyle.

 

I'm not trying to say that progression doesn't belong in those types of games. I'd just rather a more directed style of progression, like Dead Space 2 for example. In that game you and your weapons get stronger based on what you prioritize, and you also make deliberate choices on what set of weapons to use.

[Merus]

The thing that bothered me about Darksiders, particularly 2, is that it aped the Zelda formula but neglected the most important part of it: you get permanent upgrades from specific accomplishments, not from attrition. It's very rare that you can buy anything really tasty with rupees, because in Zelda you have to actually do things. In Darksiders, you have a bit of that but for the most part upgrades are from attrition, from enemies killed instead of insight and understanding.

 

Still, some people prefer it when every fight means something, because they're not in it for the discovery.

[dartmonkey]

Tapping A to pry open grilles. Groan. I get it, it's a task which requires effort, but come on Bats! There's dozens of these things. Twirling the analogues to unscrew bolts would feel better somehow. 

[Gwardinen]

I completely agree with the idea that twirling the sticks somehow feels more legitimate for those kinds of actions. For whatever reason, I'm never as bored and irritated by QTEs that feel like they're dexterous somehow.

[dibs]

Ya, some nipple twisting from God of War. How I lolled.

[Iosef Stalin]

Regenerating health

 

If you are a futuristic marine with a regenerating shield, that is one thing. But if you are a soldier fighting in World War 2, you should not be able to take a bullet in the chest and then sit behind a rock for a few seconds before popping back up and taking another bullet in the chest. But I suppose going back to having magical band-aids that heal all imaginable gunshot wounds isn't much better. Maybe what I really want is for games to stop being about an entire enemy force solely going after the player because they know the player is the only one with elvish healing powers.

 

The thing with the regenerating health is so stupid. I think Halo was the first game to do it, but it made sense because he literally had a shield that absorbed a certain amount of damage which then had to regenerate before going back into battle. It also had health underneath that which you had to get medpacks for, in Halo 2 I think they dropped that and just had the shield.

 

And then one of the Call of Duty games came along (Modern Warfare 2?) and lifted that mechanic straight out and pasted it into their game, except it made zero fucking sense. I guess it's a cute little mechanic for a fast paced shooter, whatever, but it's still fucking retarded. I hate that stupid series.

 

[sclpls]

Tapping A to pry open grilles. Groan. I get it, it's a task which requires effort, but come on Bats! There's dozens of these things. Twirling the analogues to unscrew bolts would feel better somehow. 

 

Ugh yes. This has become even more irritating since I've shifted over to PC gaming more. Smashing those console buttons was always dumb, hammering away at the E key is even more irritating.