Peeves and Preferences!

[Rai]

What do you absolutely love a game to do? Contrariwise, what do you hate to see a game do?

My preferences tend to be:

• Development-related stuff. I absolutely love that shit, so it's always a bonus to see it on the standard game disc.
• Subtitles. I know this seems like a small thing, but I keep the volume on my TV relatively low, on account of I don't live here alone.
• Gun limits, wherein you can only hold two or three firearms at a time. Forces you to be creative, y'know?
• Split-screen multiplayer. I know, I know, everything's online these days, but there's nothing quite like killing your friends for living room supremacy.
  

And I absolutely hate:

• Fully regenerating health. I could write paragraphs about it (and I have), but suffice it to say that when your health charges back to full because you've been hiding for a few seconds, it seems to me like the game is saying "You suck, here's your reward!"
• "Real" weapons that don't match up with their real-life counterparts. Should be simple enough to understand. A colt M1911 doesn't have a 9-round magazine, and a Thompson's drum magazine does not hold 100 rounds. Fuck you, Chicago Enforcer!
• When a serious game tries to be funny. There are exceptions, but most games just don't have the writing talent behind them to pull it off well, if at all.
  

[[robo9•2]]

Pokemon games with the fire starter having an evolution with a secondary fighting type. The fire type used to be the challening type for the first few gyms. But now....

[Zac]

(06-22-2009 02:40 PM)Rai Wrote:  When a serious game tries to be funny. There are exceptions, but most games just don't have the writing talent behind them to pull it off well, if at all.

Metal Gear.

[Dazz]

Metal Gear stopped being serious when they called the most threatening place in the world "Zanzibar Land"

[Vipershark]

(06-22-2009 02:40 PM)Rai Wrote:  When a serious game tries to be funny. There are exceptions, but most games just don't have the writing talent behind them to pull it off well, if at all.

also I definitely agree with the split screen multiplayer thing
games need to bring that back
I loved the "bring a guest" thing from halo 2 that allowed 2 people playing locally to play on xbox live under the same gamertag
Have you played PURE? It's an arcade racer, but it has no local multiplayer functions which sucks replay value out of it
games need to stop forcing you to go online, especially with 360 games and xbox live-only achievements
I know that's their way of getting your money, but still

[TreeStar]

(06-22-2009 04:39 PM)Vipershark Wrote:  games need to stop forcing you to go online, especially with 360 games and xbox live-only achievements

thing with that though is that while XBL does grant you achievements, it doesn't force you to go online

Your achievements are only recorded once you go online by connecting

[Zee]

I think he means stuff like in Halo having to get certain medals playing against other people.


Preferences :
1) I like strategy, I love it, but I want to be able to see the difference in using it. Pokemon does this very well when I bring my competitive Team online in Battle Revolution for random online battles. Nothing says glee like wiping Dialga, Palkia and Giratina with a team mixed of OUs and UUs.
2) I also like complete creative control. Spore, good god Spore, I love it. So much room for creativity without it adversely affecting my gameplay.

The above two make it very obvious why I like Warzone 2100 back in the day.

Peeves:
1) Games that rely on pure chance to get past plot-driven events. Battle Revolution : Sunset Coliseum. All it does it artificially lengthen the game.
2) Solo games that require grinding. This is artificially lengthening the game, and I don't want it. FINAL FANTASY, I"M LOOKING AT YOU!

More as I remember.

[Vipershark]

(06-22-2009 05:47 PM)Zee Wrote:  I think he means stuff like in Halo having to get certain medals playing against other people.

Basically, yeah. also included though are DLC-only achievements. For example, with Crackdown, once you get the game update it adds 250 new points worth of achievements. However, these are achievements are only "reachable" if you pay to get a DLC pack, which basically means that you can't get 100% achievement unless you buy that pack.

It should be instead that you get the extra achievements along with the DLC, so that the GS total is only raised AFTER you've downloaded it. Get it?

Oh, and another thing I hate is games with online systems that you can't run your own servers off of.
Pretty much any console online game, such as the PS2 ones.
Once the game maker closes the server, it's impossible to play online anymore.
People picking the game up years later can never play online.

Which leads me to games that require online activation/validation in order to play.
Basically the Steam system. I hate it.
At any time, they can pull their servers, making it impossible to lay their games. Not just to go online, but to play them. At all. any time you want to play the game, you have to connect to the internet.
What about people with no internet connections? They're left out.

[Cobalt Blue]

Phantasy Star Online's oficial servers died a while ago, but the comunnity managed to create their own free servers. most of the older games with early internet access were not using it as an integral part of the gameplay, as it is now. the Dreamcast, for example. most of their games opened the internet acess for console gaming but there wasnt any game that actually relied on it(not even PSO, who was a MMORPG with single player mode).

Now what i completely disagree and reject is the said dependancy on internet. as in the only replay value of some games is the "MULTIPLAER ONLINE" function. not like in the past there was games that only relied on said multiplayer gameplay, but hell i remember Bomberman 64 being one great game to either play alone or with 4 dudes equally.

and what i really find wonderful is the existance of platforms such as wiiware or steam. it really opened a market and the posibility for basically anyone to be able to create a game and being able to reach such a massive audience that in normal ways would be imposible for several factors.

[Omegajak]

(06-22-2009 10:23 PM)DigiTamer Metaru Wrote:  Now what i completely disagree and reject is the said dependancy on internet. as in the only replay value of some games is the "MULTIPLAER ONLINE" function. not like in the past there was games that only relied on said multiplayer gameplay, but hell i remember Bomberman 64 being one great game to either play alone or with 4 dudes equally.

Although I totally agree, it's not easy to make a game simply just "fun to play." For example for the 360 degrees and 3D jump I cold enjoy a 2 Bomberman game, no longer is the case. If I want my fix for Bomberman it's gotta be 64 1-2 and Hero.

Preferences:
Games where you know no matter how many times you pick it up, it still feels good. Megaman Legends, Brave Fencer Musashi, Devil May Cry, Ganbare Goemon 2, Snowboard Kids, Crash Bandicoot, Tales of Symphonia.

I enjoy RPG's that make you want to replay the game immediately after your done. Tales of Series, .hack, Nippon Ichi, Odin Sphere.

Games that don't make me pay for more. just to experience something I'm already paying for. I.E Online Play of any kind. Which is why I had someone else buy me my 360 and Live points, because I just don't see the point. Why pay for internet access? I would rather you charge me 10 extra dollars a game so I don't have to shelve out money to every month for 'dedicated service'. That line is laughable, because no matter what if someone's not there to make sure something doesn't work me paying them extra won't make them be there any more if it's time for them to go home.

Peeves:
Games with multiplayer story where you can kill your partner, why is this a good idea? This isn't real life so why should I be able to accidentally hit my 2P 30 times when he's trying to up his score too? It's retarded. Time Crisis needs to stop that.

Shutting down fan work. If they don't ask me your customer for money for some of the work you've already gotten paid for and moved on from leave it alone.

[mozzy]

I absolutely love it when we find out what happens to characters after the events of the game, like in the credits or something. I always feel that it ties up the plot better than any sequel can.

I abhor it when plots introduce characters that quickly die afterwards. Tokoro(?) from Cavestory is the prime example. Pixel made it seem like she was important to the game, when in actuality, nothing would have changed all that much if she wasn't there at all.

[Phantom K]

(06-23-2009 03:54 AM)moz Wrote:  I abhor it when plots introduce characters that quickly die afterwards.

yeah, that's always irritating

[Zac]

I hate when real time games have time action commands and things like that. For example the perry attacks in wind waker, it makes it to easy and I like to use my own strategy anyway. Kingdom Hearts II was another game with those, you could basiclly beat the whole game with the triangle button.
I also hate when boss battles are written in stone and the is only one way to beat them, with the same repetitve strategy. I like freedom.
And it sucks because like all games are like that now.

As for my likes- side quests and alternate endings, and relationship building like in tales of symphonia.

[SKELTON S. SKELETON]

I fucking hate plot twists.
Why does every game need a plot twist now

[TreeStar]

(06-23-2009 06:48 AM)The Question Wrote:  I fucking hate plot twists.
Why does every game need a plot twist now

I'm actually partially opposite of that

it makes the game come up with much more surprises, the only time i'd hate it was if it constantly had a plot twist in every point of the game

one plot twist is fine enough for me