I decided to write about a few things that I think games do poorly, which could have made games better, or which generally annoy me. I write it from a fairly definitive perspective, but I welcome critique and am by no means trying to "tell the Devs what to do":

 

Things that are important features and should not be ommitted:

 

Let us start with journal sections:

 

* A bestiary section

In the style of Planescape: Torment or Dungeon Siege 2

Every single monster type (not necessarily bosses of that type, though historical or important figures should be separate) should be listed here, with information possibly growing as you learn more about them.

 

If there are certain weaknesses or tactics the play could exploit, perhaps they could be listed here. This area should NOT list their damage, level, hit points, numerical resistances, etc. Qualitative not quantitative. Why? Because the game should be about atmosphere and immersion, not number crunching. The player will get a fairly good idea of their HP through battles with them.

 

The 2D portraits of PS:T were most excellent, but probably time consuming. Their 3D in game animations on a generic background would do (as in Dungeon Siege 2).

 

* Dialogue, newspapers, datacubes/datalogs

All dialogue should be stored. One liners from bums as in Deus Ex or Fallout should be stored in a "no player response" section, while actual Dialogue should go in its own section (in a way which doesn't involve scrolling through the last conversation you had to get to the one before it - grr at Fallout).

 

Datacubes/datalogs should be stored as in System Shock 2: For each "centre" or core area you visit, have a list of logs or newspapers you found for that area. I think that this area should include not just datalogs but newspapers, diaries, posters, etc, as in Deus Ex's log area. But unlike Deus Ex, you needn't look through the entire thing to find that important code, person or password, because:

 

* Codes, passwords and directions

A step up on Deus Ex would be nice: once you've found the code/info, it gets transfered to a seperate "Critical Info" log area compared to the actual datalog/newspaper/whatevs it came from.

 

You don't want the player being able to just check this section for the info without actually reading the newspaper/datalog it comes from, so (in an effort to maintain the atmosphere - though those who really want to skip it will skip it) a system where once the player has read/heard the information (played a voice-over data log, or clicked on the newspaper that was scanned to their storage banks), only then transfer the critical information, such as a code or person to find, into a special separate list called "Critical Information" or something. Possibly critical information could simply be incorporated into the steps/details for a mission in the Mission Objectives/Quests section.

 

* Maps

Don't have an always-on option (no automap). Have it as a hotkey/button (which pauses the game while it is viewed?). Also, being able to click on points on the map tends to lead to "set party to walk from point A to point B while I go make a burger" scenarios for areas already visited. That's a bad thing because I would sincerely hope that there will always be interesting situations or scenarios, similar to BG2's city areas but better - it helps make the game feel alive. Boredom produced by travelling from end to end of a cleared map isn't exactly conducive to a thrilling atmosphere. Of course, if you put in semi-lethal random encounters/respawning, I guess it's a moot point.

 

* Inventory system

I personally prefer limitations on how much I can carry, not weight-wise (always a lame system, regardless of realisticness), but space-wise. The Infinity Engine method or a Deus Ex method (inventory tetris) is preferable. I liked Deus Ex's system because it and the items were a good shape to shuffle (unlike Diablo 2) and it helped balance more powerful weapons (bigger so less space for other things) and it also limited the number of weapons you could actually carry. Why is this good? Similar to why it's good in Halo (only 2 weapons at a time): it makes you strategise about future combat situations and what weapons to have on you. Furthermore, this stops situations like in Fallout where you could have 20 tommy guns in your inventory and pawn them all for tens of thousands of dollars, severely unbalancing the currency system.

 

* Hotkeys

Please have easily hotkeyable spells/bionic powers/psionics/whatever. It really pissed me off in SS2 that I had to break game combat by pausing, going into inventory and then changing my Psi power - to the point that I basically never did it. BG2 had hotkeys for spells, but they weren't configurable in-game, which I think severely limited their utility.

 

* Pause

I've been playing Dungeon Siege 2 and something that really irks me is that a lot of the time switching to a different NPC will cancel all the other NPCs's actions - meaning all tactics need to be enacted in real-time, which obviously has its drawbacks, further it had the following problem:

 

In KOTOR, while you could assign moves for each character individually while paused, when you paused the camera automatically moved to where they were. That got annoying because it introduced a kind of lag between the camera moving (and you having to move the camera to find the enemy again) and assigning that char to attack it. I guess this is a symptom of non-isometric games, but it's definitely a limiting factor in how much strategy I put into a combat - KOTOR never got as tactical or strategic as IE games, simply because it took more time/effort to assign commands (even when I only had 3 chars in my party).

 

* Scrolling

Another thing which took unnecessary time/effort and detracted from tactics in KOTOR: you had to scroll through force powers and special attacks. Scrolling through options is generally a bad idea - kind of like scrolling in Fallout's inventory system when you've got 200 items.

 

* Circular GUIs

Why oh why are they so popular these days? Deus Ex 2 had one and it's just another reason I disliked the game. They do NOT make it more immersive. They make it annoying and awkward to figure out what's going on with your resources. Your resources should be at the edges of the screens in generally linear boxes, not integrated into the gameworld. Your special attacks, spells, ammo count, weapon quick selection, etc are NOT part of the game world. Circular = evil. PS:T had a circular right-click menu which I'm not sure what to think of. I still prefer the stuff to be on the screen edges at all times, I think.

 

Female gamers might possibly disagree here, as studies have shown females have a distinctly different idea of what shapes are "good" - typically curved, circular stuff is more pleasing to them compared to the linear, box-like shapes males prefer. Interestingly, the vast majority of websites are designed by males - something marketting types should take a serious look at. But computer games have an overwhelmingly male audience, so in conclusion, boxes... or crates.

Edited December 12, 200718 yr by Krezack

* A bestiary section:

Some of the old Nethack clones had an excellent way of doing that. I think it was called Angband, but never mind which one it was. The more encounters you had with a critter, the more you learn about it. First the average HP range and attacks, then special immunities and vulnerabilities, special abilities etc. all gradually added to the entry.

 

* Map:

Don't have an always-on option (no automap). Have it as a hotkey/button (which pauses the game while it is viewed?). Also, being able to click on points on the map tends to lead to "set party to walk from point A to point B while I go make a burger" scenarios for areas already visited. That's a bad thing because I would sincerely hope that there will always be interesting situations or scenarios, similar to BG2's city areas but better - it helps make the game feel alive. Boredom produced by travelling from end to end of a cleared map isn't exactly conducive to a thrilling atmosphere. Of course, if you put in semi-lethal random encounters/respawning, I guess it's a moot point.

I think part of what made a game like BG2 memorable was the sheer size and level of detail in it. It helped (at least the first 3 play throughs) when you never knew what to expect, just strolling around in the streets for a walk. Not really any need for a fast transit system. I did like Swift Thomas in IWD2 though.

 

* Inventory system:

The perfect inventory system is a myth. I liked S.T.A.L.K.E.R., not because the inventory system was anything new, but because you could carry so few things that it didn't really matter that it was simple (I think I have at least 20 "foot lockers" where I hoarded spare stuff all over the area). Sometimes less is more. Oh, and I like "personalised" items (family heirlooms, special award items, quest rewards etc.) over large quantities of items

 

* Circular GUIs

...

PS:T had a circular right-click menu which I'm not sure what to think of. I still prefer the stuff to be on the screen edges at all times, I think.

I didn't really mind PS:T's circular menu that much, but then, I usually only brought it up when I needed the speech bubble or the spell list. I Likes NWN2's quick spell menu. Fast to bring up, fast to tug away again when not needed. The less clutter on the screen in general, the better

 

Female gamers might possibly disagree here, as studies have shown females have a distinctly different idea of what shapes are "good" - typically curved, circular stuff is more pleasing to them compared to the linear, box-like shapes males prefer. Interestingly, the vast majority of websites are designed by males - something marketting types should take a serious look at. But computer games have an overwhelmingly male audience, so in conclusion, boxes... or crates.

I like to look at "Curved" things

 

A shame that my old girl in love with a crate picture disappeared with the canned game section.

If there is going to be a bestiary section it should be added to by skill-check and effort. It would be cool to have some representation change in-game. Benefits are cumulative. To reach each level, all actions must be performed.

 

1. Basic - No skillpoints - actioned by walking up to corpse and nudging it with your boot - minimal damage reduction to its attacks

2. Improved - One skillpoint - actioned by walking up to corpse and poking at it with a bayonet - increased damage bonus vs subject

3. Trained - several skillpoints - actioned by performing above, which results in sample organ in inventory which can be taken away for dissection - greatly increased damage bonus with certain weapon types

4. Specialist - Many skillpoints - actioned through observing living entity with scanners a la bioshock - slows entity speed, and reduces damage from their attacks considerably (player can predict subject actions), also permits the construction of lures/decoys/traps

5. Expert - Maximum points -a target must be designated as for study, meaning the player must fight it hampered by the need to secure it more or less intact, either through use of a really crappy weapon or killing it slowly - permits the construction of specialised weapons and armour.

 

 

Note that this ties into my earlier assertions that there should be a game archetype of scientist, who starts out fair weedy and becomes very very potent later in the game.

Generally agree with OP - especially a comprehensive journal with various sections.

 

About circular GUIs, I don't like them either, but because a) I find them hard to navigate and b) I like to be able to see lots of things at once. PS:T was generallya cceptable because you hardly had many things to look at in any one given menu anyway; in NWN it got moronic because your character has like 50 skills, not 10.

 

I don't think it's really a male/female thing, I think its just that we grow up using linear charts and tables as a primary reference for information and that is the way our brains are trained to process information, instead of this circuly googlie stuff.

Note that this ties into my earlier assertions that there should be a game archetype of scientist, who starts out fair weedy and becomes very very potent later in the game.

MacGyver vs. Aliens?

wow,4 consecutive moderator posts,to bad,it's c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker now

Edited December 15, 200718 yr by yoomazir

Note that this ties into my earlier assertions that there should be a game archetype of scientist, who starts out fair weedy and becomes very very potent later in the game.

MacGyver vs. Aliens?

 

He'll face a horde of aliens armed with a staple and some lint.

* A bestiary section

In the style of Planescape: Torment or Dungeon Siege 2

Every single monster type (not necessarily bosses of that type, though historical or important figures should be separate) should be listed here, with information possibly growing as you learn more about them.

 

If there are certain weaknesses or tactics the play could exploit, perhaps they could be listed here. This area should NOT list their damage, level, hit points, numerical resistances, etc. Qualitative not quantitative. Why? Because the game should be about atmosphere and immersion, not number crunching. The player will get a fairly good idea of their HP through battles with them.

 

The 2D portraits of PS:T were most excellent, but probably time consuming. Their 3D in game animations on a generic background would do (as in Dungeon Siege 2).

 

I like to expand Krezak's idea on this section by adding a research feature in the game similar to X-COM which can be awfully immersive as well as allowing players to gain access to experimental weapons or damage bonus against the enemies(Similar to System Shock) to make it fruitful.

MacGyver vs. Aliens?

I thought that was Stargate: SG-1?

But he doesn't have the mullet in Stargate. He's not MacGyver if he doesn't have the mullet.

I saw mention of a Bestiary. I really like Witcher's bestiary. It is very useful. It had information on lore, weaknesses, tactics (theirs), and harvestable ingrediants (not sure this point would be applicable). And information in it wasn't gained simply by fighting them, but by finding books. Of course book finding is substitutable for research skills or whatnot.

what is Aliens

what is Aliens

 

what is Aliens

It's a film.

I want to strangle myself after hearing that one

I'm just running into the Witcher's Bestiary system now. I think they're on the right track in that you can't simply see the beast once, and then immediately know everything about them down to their reproductive organs and the chemical makeup of their skin. Only getting basic info on sight, then more details such as skinnability from people or books/datapads is a nice idea.

 

Owner: original film franchise (see Steve's post), now being adapted into a game by Obsidian.

I'm just running into the Witcher's Bestiary system now. I think they're on the right track in that you can't simply see the beast once, and then immediately know everything about them down to their reproductive organs and the chemical makeup of their skin. Only getting basic info on sight, then more details such as skinnability from people or books/datapads is a nice idea.

 

Owner: original film franchise (see Steve's post), now being adapted into a game by Obsidian.

 

I havent played The Witcher, but I like that idea, I think it would be pretty cool if after you have killed said beast you could then collect some kind of sample from it and send it back to a lab to be analyzed kind of like you do in the game Condemned.