Game Design Stuff You Hate

[Hassat Hunter]

Most NPC escort mission I know have NPC's with like 1HP, who have the urge to drop themselves en-masse before the enemy (or ignore them, then get a fatal stab in the back), or jump off a cliff, or similar silly stuff. I often dreamed of actual NPC escort where I cannot fail due to AI-flaws.

 

Obviously they should fix the AI, but until those times what titles offer unkillable NPC's who tag along?

 

Off-topic; what's with all the double and quatriple-posts?

Edited November 17, 2008 by Hassat Hunter

[Hell Kitty]

But the core concept is the same - invincible NPCs whose condition is explained by ingame context is much preferable.

 

This is what I mean when I say there is no right (good design) answer, and that arguing doing something one way is more immersive* will never get anywhere. I just can't agree with the above. All games have rules that must be followed, these rules need to exist for the player, but they don't need to be known by the character. Far Cry 2 could have thrown in a line about how mercs never attack one another unless on the battlefield in order to give an in-universe explanation as to why buddies can't be harmed in certain situations, but I'm glad it doesn't. That stuff always feels like hand holding and it irks me.

 

And they also try to protect them from harm. Which becomes pointless when they can't be harmed. Where's the emotional connection there.

 

I think it's more important that a game allows us to protect a character we have an attachment to, than it is to make that protection necessary. In Silent Hill 4 the player has an unkillable companion, and the amount of damage she receives from your failure to protect changes the ending. In Silent Hill 2, the amount of time we spend with another unkillable companion, for whatever reason (to protect her, to stare at her like a creep) can potentially change the ending.

 

*God, I can't even go to some forums now because anything folks don't like is dismissed as destroying immersion. "Third person? But that's not immersive!" Blergh.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This is what I mean when I say there is no right (good design) answer, and that arguing doing something one way is more immersive* will never get anywhere. I just can't agree with the above. All games have rules that must be followed, these rules need to exist for the player, but they don't need to be known by the character. Far Cry 2 could have thrown in a line about how mercs never attack one another unless on the battlefield in order to give an in-universe explanation as to why buddies can't be harmed in certain situations, but I'm glad it doesn't. That stuff always feels like hand holding and it irks me.

 

Wouldn't a character question the existence of invulnerable entities in a gameworld that requires you to protect or, at least, not harm them? In any case, I could use the same logic to describle invulnerable NPCs - hand holding to prevent players from screwing a game. If that explanation had existed in FC2, I certainly wouldn't mind since it provides two things I enjoy in games - effective build up of the setting and no out of character explanation of game rules. And also probably for the same reason you dislike initial tutorial areas (*) - hand holding.

 

 

I think it's more important that a game allows us to protect a character we have an attachment to, than it is to make that protection necessary. In Silent Hill 4 the player has an unkillable companion, and the amount of damage she receives from your failure to protect changes the ending. In Silent Hill 2, the amount of time we spend with another unkillable companion, for whatever reason (to protect her, to stare at her like a creep) can potentially change the ending.

 

Perhaps, but in retrospect, it also facilitates the reverse. Players who want to see a different ending just don't need to care about the damage she receives at all.

 

 

*God, I can't even go to some forums now because anything folks don't like is dismissed as destroying immersion. "Third person? But that's not immersive!" Blergh.

 

I don't argue for immersion or realism, really. Never have, never will. Which is why I actually used quotes for immersion - it's a bloated, misunderstood term; yet, it's taken a hold of general consensus as some arbitrary rule games must abide to. I decided to go preemptive strike before someone threw that in to the mix. If anything, I argue for consistency in setting and game rules.

 

 

(*) Erm, at least I think it was you.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Diogo Ribeiro

[Volourn]

"The only way to do that is to make all characters generic, basically you recreate the character as another character. You need another character to step into it's shoes and fill the gap."

 

This simp0ly isn't true. Most of the most memorable npcs ever were/are killable. This is evidenced in BG series, and FO series as two huge examples. *shrug*

 

Unkillable characters hurts a games' role-playing. Note I'm not suggesting the player be a homicidal maniac either. Being allowed to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

Anyone can commit a murder in RL; but most of us decide against it for whatever reason. The choice NOT TO though makes the choice have actual merit. If we COULDN'T commit murder (if, say, God simp forbid it forcefully) then any talk of being morals would be useless, imo.

 

You cna't really be good if you cna't choose to be evil. You can't really be against violence if you have no option to commit violence. Most RP0Gs like to tackle things like morality... well, it kinda hurts that track when it forces you to be 'good'.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Volourn

[Hassat Hunter]

Most of the most memorable npcs ever were/are killable. This is evidenced in BG series

 

Yeah, like Imoen in the BG2 starter dungeon, or Irenicus in the Asylum, hmmm? Also I remember an extreme overpowered character killing the PC if he killed off both ways to that Asylum.

BG and BG2 had their share of invernable PC's either, but apparently that didn't seem to bother you at that time. Why does it do so now?

 

(Also, Imoen's death-rules in both BG's made no sense. If the PC cannot be revived because of being half-god, why the hell can she? Talk about an "immersion-breaker")

[Volourn]

"Yeah, like Imoen in the BG2 starter dungeon, or Irenicus in the Asylum, hmmm? Also I remember an extreme overpowered character killing the PC if he killed off both ways to that Asylum.

BG and BG2 had their share of invernable PC's either, but apparently that didn't seem to bother you at that time. Why does it do so now?"

 

Huh? Who says it didn't bother me? Don't be a tool.

 

You can kill Imoen in BG1, btw. You can also kill her as soon as you get her back. And, let's not forget the fast majority of joinables in BG2 ar every much killable. And, it didn't make those characters any less interetsing.

[Hassat Hunter]

They are, however, not necessary to progress the plot.

I have to agree, Minsc is awesome, but you can progress the plot without him (unlike say a Kreia in KOTOR2 or pretty much any vampire in Bloodlines (Jack, the Prince, Nines)).

 

Yeah, Imoen is killable. And revivable afterwards too. And if I recall correct the reason why the PC couldn't is because (s)he was a Bhaal-spawn. Imoen is too. For me that is more of an immersionbreaker than (not) being able to kill a NPC.

Although I have to admit I was kind of dissapointed in IWD1 when I used Finger of Death on a kid, and got a X is killed message, and she was still alive...

[Volourn]

"(unlike say a Kreia in KOTOR2 or pretty much any vampire in Bloodlines (Jack, the Prince, Nines))."

 

Not with better design.

[Maria Caliban]

Invisible War comes to mind as a good example, as it had areas lockdown your weapons usage for security reasons (which actually tied in neatly to the setting without ruining suspension of disbelief or breaking "immersion").

 

I'm going to disagree. I can't use my crowbar or baton because someone flicked the 'lock-down' switch built into it. That makes no sense.

[Calax]

Invisible War comes to mind as a good example, as it had areas lockdown your weapons usage for security reasons (which actually tied in neatly to the setting without ruining suspension of disbelief or breaking "immersion").

 

I'm going to disagree. I can't use my crowbar or baton because someone flicked the 'lock-down' switch built into it. That makes no sense.

Well I honestly don't remember if there was melee weapons in IW but in Metal Gear Solid they had a way to make your nanites lock out the ability to fire a gun.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Invisible War comes to mind as a good example, as it had areas lockdown your weapons usage for security reasons (which actually tied in neatly to the setting without ruining suspension of disbelief or breaking "immersion").

 

I'm going to disagree. I can't use my crowbar or baton because someone flicked the 'lock-down' switch built into it. That makes no sense.

 

Concept vs. implementation.

[Calax]

Forced Co-op.

 

Co-op is great but when you design a game around it the single player who goes for it gets shafted like no tommarow.

[Maria Caliban]

Invisible War comes to mind as a good example, as it had areas lockdown your weapons usage for security reasons (which actually tied in neatly to the setting without ruining suspension of disbelief or breaking "immersion").

 

I'm going to disagree. I can't use my crowbar or baton because someone flicked the 'lock-down' switch built into it. That makes no sense.

 

Concept vs. implementation.

 

If you label something as a 'good example' I'll assume you mean the implimentaion is good.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And its is. It's just not as good as it could have been.

[Hell Kitty]

Wouldn't a character question the existence of invulnerable entities in a gameworld that requires you to protect or, at least, not harm them?

 

Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in.

 

In any case, I could use the same logic to describle invulnerable NPCs - hand holding to prevent players from screwing a game.

 

Not really. Hand holding is when the developer does something because the player can not or will not do it themselves. For example the player could find the object they need to progress in the game on their own, or the developer can hold their hand by giving them something like a glowing quest arrow. Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game.

 

Anyway, the implementation of safe zones in DX:IW is fine, in that it does what it needs to do, provides an area to place plot essential characters to keep them free from harm, but the in-universe explanation is ridiculous and ultimately ruins it because it draws attention to the conceit rather than covering it up, which doesn't make for a good example. Bloodlines is a good example with an in-universe explanation, Far Cry 2 is a good example without, IW is a horrible example.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in.

 

And if you're playing the character while assisted by mechanisms that effectively allow you to "be" the character, then you *are* the character, being exposed to these problems. There's no way around it, since the character perceives the gameworld through your interactions and vice-versa.

 

Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game.

 

So, foreknowledge excludes invincible NPCs to be a hand holding example, despite the fact they are, in fact, guiding the players' hand in terms of narrative direction and structure? Ok, if you say so.

 

 

Anyway, the implementation of safe zones in DX:IW is fine, in that it does what it needs to do, provides an area to place plot essential characters to keep them free from harm, but the in-universe explanation is ridiculous and ultimately ruins it because it draws attention to the conceit rather than covering it up, which doesn't make for a good example. Bloodlines is a good example with an in-universe explanation, Far Cry 2 is a good example without, IW is a horrible example.

 

Locking down weapons because of violence isn't in line with a setting where everyone is on their toes after the terrorist attacks? Fine.

 

Am I having a good day with all you forumfolk, or what.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Diogo Ribeiro

[Llyranor]

I hate all game design made by Role-Player.

[Amentep]

Wouldn't a character question why they're suddenly better at bartering and talking to people when all they've done is kill supermutants and pick locks? Wouldn't a character question why they look down and they have no legs? And what about their peripheral vision? Nah, a character is only capable of doing what the developer programs them for, and they're generally not programmed to question the rules, or the limitations, of the game they're in.

 

And if you're playing the character while assisted by mechanisms that effectively allow you to "be" the character, then you *are* the character, being exposed to these problems. There's no way around it, since the character perceives the gameworld through your interactions and vice-versa.

 

Interesting question; but from the perspective of the character (as opposed to your perspective being the character) would a character really seem to be invulnerable to them from their perspective? Or would it just seem they were lucky or fated to live?

 

This question goes to one though of where the game ends and the "reality" the game creates begins. Is what we see what the character really experiences (do they really take 50pts of damage out of a pool of 200) or is it a mechanism for us to relate to what happens but via a "game" we play (the character doesn't have hit points, and manages to finish the fight without a wounded arm that will take months to heal)?

 

Hand holding as an explanation for invulnerable NPCs makes no sense, as the player cannot know beforehand which characters are important, and thus are unable to prevent themselves from screwing up the game.

 

So, foreknowledge excludes invincible NPCs to be a hand holding example, despite the fact they are, in fact, guiding the players' hand in terms of narrative direction and structure? Ok, if you say so.

 

Well story, narrative direction and structure itself could be seen as a form of hand holding, I'd think. But games by their nature are such that they require some framework within to exist, so I think some degree of hand holding is inevitable, even if its simply the limits of the game world.

 

So it seems to me the question as to what is hand holding is going to be subjective to the player and whether they feel certain design choices put them on "rails" or not.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Amentep

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Purely rag-doll physic deaths.

 

Don't do it. Characters look like they're in a sexual position when dying. Their arms and legs flail around like sticks. It looks aweful.

[Gorth]

Purely rag-doll physic deaths.

 

Don't do it. Characters look like they're in a sexual position when dying. Their arms and legs flail around like sticks. It looks aweful.

It does give them a certain "comic book" quality when it's over done.

 

More hate stuff: Excessive loot, badly distributed/random loot and the real killer... getting the Big Sword of Crate Slaying + 12 as a reward for killing the last Crate in the game >_

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Generic loot.

 

Getting "Avenger 1" or "Storm VII" in Mass Effect was incredibly dull. You would never get a feel that you have an very unique weapon, because all you get is the series name and number. Make them have other specific effects, or just more interesting names. Make certain loot stand out, and of God's sake, RPGs need actual inventory systems. make them simple (RE4, Dead Space) if need be, but at least have one so I can look at all the thing I'm carrying more efficiently. Having equipment only improve the same three different stats (Damage/Shot before overheat/Accuracy) is really boring as well.

[Dark_Raven]

Purely rag-doll physic deaths.

 

Don't do it. Characters look like they're in a sexual position when dying. Their arms and legs flail around like sticks. It looks aweful.

It does give them a certain "comic book" quality when it's over done.

 

More hate stuff: Excessive loot, badly distributed/random loot and the real killer... getting the Big Sword of Crate Slaying + 12 as a reward for killing the last Crate in the game

Yeah that should have been at the beginning of the game.

 

 

Loot like guns and armor that is found on beings who would not have such items, like animals, is just lame.

[Hell Kitty]

Locking down weapons because of violence isn't in line with a setting where everyone is on their toes after the terrorist attacks?

 

Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city.

 

Generic loot.

 

Getting "Avenger 1" or "Storm VII" in Mass Effect was incredibly dull.

 

I really enjoyed exploring in Gothic 3, but what killed it for me was that I knew I was never going to find anything interesting. This seems to be the standard for RPGs nowadays. At least Fallout 3 had bobbleheads and unique weapons to find hidden away in the wasteland.

 

RE4

 

Every game needs to use the inventory system from RE4. Every single one.

 

and the real killer... getting the Big Sword of Crate Slaying + 12 as a reward for killing the last Crate in the game

 

In Saint's Row 2, one of the bonuses I unlocked by completely an activity gave me a bonus for dealing with a particular gang, problem was I had already completely wiped that gang out.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city.

 

Why would an organization or enclave use it considering they have the resources to hire security, or even develop their own? They can spend money on a regular basis for personnel and technology, as opposed to a rotten bar downtown whose owner doesn't make enough to even hire bodyguards, but decided on a one time investment of widespread, relatively low cost security technology.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Diogo Ribeiro

[Hell Kitty]

Except that's not why the technology exists, its sole purpose is to prevent Alex Denton from killing particular people. None of the organizations that need it actually use it, even though it's apparently common enough to be used in a bar in the poor section of the city.

 

Why would an organization or enclave use it considering they have the resources to hire security, or even develop their own? They can spend money on a regular basis for personnel and technology, as opposed to a rotten bar downtown whose owner doesn't make enough to even hire bodyguards, but decided on a one time investment of widespread, relatively low cost security technology.

 

Why spend money on fallible, corruptible humans, or waste money developing their own version of technology that has proven so effective it even stops people from using melee weapons? Of course the real answer to the question of why other organizations in the game don't use this technology is that the story requires that they don't. Like when Victim #1 in Generic Horror Movie makes Stupid, Obvious Mistake #13.

 

The answer to questions like "why are some characters invulnerable?" or "why can't I attack people in certain locations?" is "to preserve the integrity of the story". The reason for the weapon locking technology in DX:IW is to give an in-game reason to this common game rule/limitation, but when it just leads to another question, "why don't other organizations use this technology?, the answer for which is "to preserve the integrity of the story", then it fails.