12 Video Game Annoyances That Need to Die

Wrong forum subsection? We'll see.
Lemme start by numbering the "dirty dozen":

- Games Where You Pay Money to Win
- Social Gaming Bullshit Instead of Real-Life Multiplayer on the Sofa
- Restricting How and When We Can Play
- A.I. Hasn't Gotten Better in Decades
- Story-Breaking Mini-Games
- Every Game Has at Least One Element That's Basically Broken

- Making Every Hero Look the Same
- Making Every Game About Endless Combat
- Refusing to Tell Serious Stories
- Game Mechanics That Remind You It's a Game
- "Epic" Game Plots That Amount to a Ridiculous Chain of Errands
- Giving Us Moral Choices That Don't Actually Affect Anything

Taken from Cracked:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/12-video-game-annoyances-that-need-to-die-part-1/
http://www.cracked.com/blog/12-video-game-annoyances-that-need-to-die-part-2/

You may read whole articles or not, but IMO what's number as annoyances in videogames is actually 12 annoyances in recent RPGs. Even the social gaming problem - maybe you don't remember me spitting on DX:The Fall design with menu option called: FACEBOOK. Seriously, who needs that BS?

Anyway, do you also think that those things need to die? I do and maybe you do too. The only problem is none of us is EA CEO.

Without a doubt, my biggest annoyance on the list is the elimination of couch Co-op for internet only multiplayer. I always played console games on the same couch as friends and family growing up. Now there are tons of "multiplayer" games that can only be played multiplayer via the internet. It drives me insane. If I want to sit down and game with my brother or dad the options to do so have actually decreased.

- Sequels to let's say PC games coming out on another, completely different platform ...

- Having to include 'online' components to games that don't need it (worst offender: SimCity)
- Multiplatforming: Missing features and underutilizing PC's natural strengths because the game also goes for consoles (small maps, UI that doesn't use mouse to the fullest, savepoints instead of save-anywhere, limited access to abilities because controllers only have 6 buttons, etc).

- Stupid save systems. I want to save anywhere, any time. If you can't save while a battle is going on, I can deal with that, but I better not have to wait more than 10 minutes to be able to save. Also, I want multiple save slots and quicksave. Unfortunately, we're seeing more and more games where you get ONE save slot and it's autosaved whenever you get to some checkpoint. Save game get corrupted? Oh well, start over from the beginning sucker.

- Games designed for distracted people. Lots of people barely pay attention for 5 minutes before they answer a tweet or otherwise do something else for a bit. Consequently, many games are designed so you can forget what you're doing every 5 minutes and still do just fine. Linear levels are the most annoying example of this. (Serious stories probably are, too.)

Regarding the existing points... a lot of those are stuff I don't run into simply because I don't touch those sorts of games. Pay to win? All heroes looking the same? Big kudos to the "mini-game" thing, though. Those are almost never all that fun. They're fine as a quick distraction but I grow to hate them pretty often when they're used to, say, unlock doors/chests.

Zloth said:

- Stupid save systems. I want to save anywhere, any time. If you can't save while a battle is going on, I can deal with that, but I better not have to wait more than 10 minutes to be able to save. Also, I want multiple save slots and quicksave. Unfortunately, we're seeing more and more games where you get ONE save slot and it's autosaved whenever you get to some checkpoint. Save game get corrupted? Oh well, start over from the beginning sucker.

Click to expand...

Same here.

I also hate QTEs and escort missions when the escorted NPC has the AI of a suicide lemming.

While no directly relevant I think the hype as described in this article is a major annoyance
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-06-12-see-those-mountains

- DLCs and Add-Ons that are never republished again (and are therefore really, really hard to get or even find after a few years - especially after the end of a game's support).

- "Gold" versions of a game including all bugfixes, but 0 DLCs or Add-Ons.

- Anything living (or un-living) in a certain world being placed there as cannon fodder err xp fodder.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

- DLCs and Add-Ons that are never republished again (and are therefore really, really hard to get or even find after a few years - especially after the end of a game's support).

Click to expand...

I didn't understand this point, then I remembered your aversion for digital downloads. I think this is an annoyance that you're putting on yourself. DLCs and Add-Ons are just one click away in most games nowadays, regardless of how old the game is. Embrace the digital goodness!

I hate, really hate QTEs but my pet peeve these days is not really a game play issue. I want to be able to tell a game where to put my save files not have them in 100 different folders, appdata, documents, my games. A mess. I keep promising myself I'll write an app that will put all of these saves in a folder of my choice then monitor my exe files and copy them to where the game expects when it runs and copies them back to my custom folder when I close. One of these days...

Level Scaling
Monster Respawning
Can't save anytime, anywhere (accept in the middle of combat)

Premium priced early access versions.

People will eventually learn, but developers are really full of themselves if they think playing their unfinished crap is worth more money than a game fit for release. Especially when they tout how you are helping them find bugs and giving them early criticism before review sites tear them a new one.

I fell for playing alpha/beta content of a game once, and I will never do it again. It was Stardock's War of Magic, and I swear it was like a kindergartener showing off their finger-painting for almost the entire thing.

What's really funny on the list and is typical of game 'journalists' today is first the guy whines about most of the characters being white guys, then he whines about the black guy written by white guys talking ganger trash :lol:

I think the people making games should make what they want, though to be certain most the people making games in the US are white and most of the people buying games in US are white and that's the biggest market so expecting them to play as a bengali teenager is a little bit insane. If you can even possibly come up with a game that has cool factor which features such a protagonist.

Political correctness has completely ruined BBC in a short time, I could do without all that BS in gaming as well.

Then we go to 5. Combat. Ok, so we should make a game about…? This kind of complaint really annoys me and it's been around forever. Combat of various types is basically a genre. A beat-em-up is a genre, tactical rpgs are a genre and original RPGs all fit more or less in this category. It's like saying that you should have chess without moving pieces around. People whining like this are welcome to invent some more nonviolent genres but an action movie or war movie without violence is utter crap.

4. Serious stories. Ok, so a serious story about nonwhites which is completely nonviolent? I guess you could play as ghandi fighting nonviolently for civil rights. If anything stories already ruin games today, and even the 'good' stories are horrible. The zombies he's complaining about are a result of political correctness in the first place - there's no evil villain except white guys acceptable but you can't even use nazis as your villains, and cold war is over so no russians either.

5. "After all, it's not repetition if I'm trying new strategies to accomplish the same thing — there were levels in both of the good Arkham games that probably took me more than a dozen tries before I finally figured out the right combination of sneaking and punching needed to take down a tower full of gun-toting bad guys who could shred my bat-shaped ass with one well-targeted burst" - geez, seriously? This guy is pretty terrible gamer. At any rate if anything there's attempt to immerse the gamer too much already, and removing all feedback from the game would be a disaster.


The last two I agree with are a big problem and no doubt why you bring this up. This is why I hate "choice and consequence" type gaming. In fallout it was nice but for other games in modern age with higher budget it is another story. They can't remake all their content because it's more than just writing so they just give the illusion of choice today.

Things can either be cinematic or not. If they are cinematic they will never be like those games, it's just impossible. Which is just more argument against games of that type I guess.

It's just like politics today. You can marry your cat if you want so you have a lot of "freedom" in that respect but you don't really have any say on real political issues like wall street bailout, immigration, shipping jobs away to china etc. etc. etc. which both parties agree on 100% due to the immense bribes/compaign "contributions" they get from interested parties.

Burress said:

Premium priced early access versions.

People will eventually learn, but developers are really full of themselves if they think playing their unfinished crap is worth more money than a game fit for release. Especially when they tout how you are helping them find bugs and giving them early criticism before review sites tear them a new one.

I fell for playing alpha/beta content of a game once, and I will never do it again. It was Stardock's War of Magic, and I swear it was like a kindergartener showing off their finger-painting for almost the entire thing.

Click to expand...

Ehm, if I do Early Access, it's not to play an early version of the game. It's my way of showing support for a game that I'm interested in, and I'll end up playing the full version. If I help them with bugs, it's because I choose to do that - and it's entirely optional.

If I pay for an early version and I expect it to be a guarentee that I'll like the finished product, I'm an idiot.

When it comes to RPGs, my biggest peev are static game worlds. RPGs should strive to better world simulation where U7 left off. Object interactability. Morphing landscapes due to c&c. I've always felt that the world in which an RPG takes place in is as much a character as any npc, yet most RPGs have very static, boring game worlds.

I would have to say one of the things in games that drives me complete nuts is changing how you have to fight a BOSS. You go along playing the game learning which works best in the game for you in battles. Then you get to a BOSS and all that is out the window and you have to follow some pattern or learn that pattern to move on. BLAH..

TheMadGamer said:

When it comes to RPGs, my biggest peev are static game worlds. RPGs should strive to better world simulation where U7 left off. Object interactability. Morphing landscapes due to c&c. I've always felt that the world in which an RPG takes place in is as much a character as any npc, yet most RPGs have very static, boring game worlds.

Click to expand...

I haven't played U7 yet, but I agree.

Object "interactability" is a big thing of mine. I love a game that has a ton of it, and games that don't offer much at all are of much less interest to me.

Morphing landscapes due to c&c is tricky. I've heard Ken Rolston speak on this and he says it's not only tricky, but also expensive.

I thought Gothic had a great game world.

CelticFrost said:

I would have to say one of the things in games that drives me complete nuts is changing how you have to fight a BOSS. You go along playing the game learning which works best in the game for you in battles. Then you get to a BOSS and all that is out the window and you have to follow some pattern or learn that pattern to move on. BLAH..

Click to expand...

*cough* Risen *cough*

BrianOConnell said:

I hate, really hate QTEs but my pet peeve these days is not really a game play issue. I want to be able to tell a game where to put my save files not have them in 100 different folders, appdata, documents, my games. A mess. I keep promising myself I'll write an app that will put all of these saves in a folder of my choice then monitor my exe files and copy them to where the game expects when it runs and copies them back to my custom folder when I close. One of these days…

Click to expand...

Hehe, I almost started a topic on this a few days ago, just to try and track all the places games are saved! The actual "Saved Games" folder in my profile has Sword of the Stars 1 and 2, Two Worlds 1 and 2, Risen, Crysis 2 (blah), and Microsoft Games. That's it. Of course, there's also My Games under My Documents. That's got more (including Crysis 1) but it isn't nearly as many as are stored in folders directly under My Documents. And then there's all the ones located *somewhere* under AppData. That's a really horrible place to put your save games, given that it's a hidden folder.

Zloth said:

Hehe, I almost started a topic on this a few days ago, just to try and track all the places games are saved! The actual "Saved Games" folder in my profile has Sword of the Stars 1 and 2, Two Worlds 1 and 2, Risen, Crysis 2 (blah), and Microsoft Games. That's it. Of course, there's also My Games under My Documents. That's got more (including Crysis 1) but it isn't nearly as many as are stored in folders directly under My Documents. And then there's all the ones located *somewhere* under AppData. That's a really horrible place to put your save games, given that it's a hidden folder.

Click to expand...

I think it has less to do with the game's developers and more to do with how Microsoft keeps changing their mind about where things are located on every Windows version.