Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

The one thing that will make me drop a game almost immediately

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by BIGTIMEMASTER, Oct 31, 2017.

  1. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    There are lots of things that will make me dislike a new game. Corny voice acting/writing, poor presentation, unclear UI and lack of intuitiveness just to identify a few things.

    But while those things can keep me from loving a game, they won't necessarily keep me from enjoying a game if there is one thing that the developers do really well. Inversely, though, if they don't get this one thing right I am almost sure to drop the game immediately, even if everything else is nailed down perfectly (I'm looking at you, Ghost Recon Wildlands). That is, the controls.

    The controls have to feel good. They have to make playing the game as natural and intuitive as possible. If I am going to be fighting zombie hordes, melee combat should not consist of 3 second wind-up animations that lock me in place once I press the button. My movement shouldn't be stiff and angular. Don't make the game anxiety inducing because I feel like I'm stuck in a cocoon -- make it anxiety inducing because the enemies are going to push me to develop mastery with a satisfying, slick, responsive control scheme.

    If I am driving in an open world, and probably using my vehicle as a weapon which will involve lots of quick turn arounds, don't make the turning radius so wide that you can't make a quick three point turn on the given roads. Make sure the scale works realistically. Any action the player is going to make many times -- don't make it a chore to perform.

    One thing I've noticed about all the games that I've really loved -- and are usually super popular -- is that they have perfect controls. You pick up the controller and almost immediately you can perform whatever action you want without having to get used to it. Halo, Super Mario, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter Strike, Dark Souls, Zombie Army Trilogy, Angry Birds, Grand Theft Auto (most of the vehicles)... those are a few off the top of my head that really have nice control schemes that make the games just downright satisfying to play.

    I've tried out many indie zombie survival games lately because of Halloween sales. I've seen a lot of really cool, clever, and rich overall game designs -- but so many times they are ruined by a control scheme that just makes the game no fun to actually execute. The one game I find myself return to time and again is Zombie Army. What does is have? Just shooting and a nicely realized atmosphere. That's it. No real story, no characters to care about. You just travel from one mini arena to the next and get headshots. There's nothing more to it. But the shooting is so good, so precise yet challenging, it's just fun to do over and over.

    On the other hand, a game I want to like because it has a lot gameplay systems I think are really cool is State of Decay. Now, to be fair, the controls are pretty good and I generally like them, but they are a long way from the satisfaction of Zombie Army. The aiming is off -- there is a sluggishness and weightiness to it, coupled with a chunky crosshair and lack distinctive gun shot noises and dynamic indications of recoil. This keeps the shooting from being something I really look forward to engaging in.
     
  2. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,624
    I disagree, it heavily depends on the game. For example, the original Prince of Persia ( the 1989 one ), has pretty unresponsive and awkward controls for today's standards but I think it would be a lesser game with more responsive controls.

    This is not controls, it's "game feel".
     
  3. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181

    Yeah, that is probably a more accurate term. The way the audio and visual ties into the controls and comes together to make a dynamic response to the players input -- that summation is the feel of the game.
     
  4. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    Valuable point. I can deal with clunky controls sometimes, but there's something that feels so good about well-done controls. Part of it is the game feel too, but it can create a sense of flow that's just so excellent.
     
  5. Joe-Censored

    Joe-Censored

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Posts:
    11,847
    Bad controls can certainly make or break a game that is for sure.

    This is going to show my age, but this brings me way back to the first time I really encountered a problem in this area, and that was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom on NES. At that point games like Super Mario Bros had firmly entrenched the standard of what the A and B buttons did, and virtually every game on the NES followed that. The designers of Indiana Jones however made the simple mistake of reversing the roles of these 2 buttons. This lead to constant confusion while playing the game, as you had to always remember that the buttons were opposite of every other game ever made for the NES. Complete nonsense that really made the game hard to enjoy.

    Now today game controls are far more complicated than back then. Way more buttons, UI interactions, etc, leave many more areas that could become problematic. But it really all comes down to how intuitive the controls are. If this is a game that is part of a genre, players of that genre should be able to pick up the controls quickly and not have to learn a complete new layout to do something that is already well established by other similar games. Yes new features will often require additional control options, but the basic functionality of the controls should conform to the established standard for the genre. As the designer you may think it is rather clever to completely redesign the controls, but players won't necessarily see that as some spark of genius, rather they will consider it an unnecessary headache.

    For games that are really breaking new ground, the controls need to at least make sense and not seem unnecessarily difficult. A new player shouldn't be able to come up with their own better idea on how the controls should be within 5 minutes of playing your game. For example, if there is a UI button or option that is frequently accessed during normal play, don't shove it 4 windows deep in your menu system. It doesn't matter that it makes sense there because it is with other options of the same category, if it needs to be pressed all the time make it easy to get to, and leave the rarely used options deep in the menus.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  6. starikcetin

    starikcetin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Posts:
    340
    So accurate. +1
     
  7. wccrawford

    wccrawford

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,039
    I used to be able to play games with bad controls and enjoy them, but I just can't now. Most new games have such good controls that I can't be asked to play ones that have bad ones.

    The original Tomb Raider is my go-to example of horrid controls, but I played the heck out of that game. I tried to return to it a few years ago and just couldn't deal with it.

    My latest game example is that Girl and the Robot game that came out not long ago. The controls were so horrible that I just gave up on it. It wasn't worth fighting the controls.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  8. Habitablaba

    Habitablaba

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Posts:
    136
    My go-to example is the original release of Resident Evil. Holy crap, the controls were so clunky it hurt. Back then, I put up with it because I didn't know better. But now, that's just unacceptable.
     
    theANMATOR2b and wccrawford like this.
  9. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    I remember trying to play Resident Evil back in the day. I remember saying, "Why does it take twelve years to turn around?" and I never touched it again.

    And this will likely catch me some flak, but I liked Dead Space 3 a lot more than the original. I know, I know. DS3 was a sellout, but you know what? At least I didn't feel like I was piloting a barge in that game.
     
  10. wccrawford

    wccrawford

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Posts:
    2,039
    So true! And even worse, the developers defend those controls and say they want to add suspense with them. Ugh. Hate them so much.
     
  11. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    It's funny you mention this. The original prince of persia was revolutionary in terms of fluid controls and animation for the time.

    I think that prince of persia was actually a spiritual ancestor to assassins creed, another game with incredible controls.
     
    theANMATOR2b and Martin_H like this.
  12. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,624
    It was fluid in terms of animation. As far as "responsiveness" goes it was pretty "bad" (for example, jumps could only happen in certain parts of the animation, so usually you would hit the jump key much earlier than when the jump actually happened).

    I mean compare it Super Mario Bros 3 (or even 1), which predates prince of persia, as far as responsiveness is concerned there is really no contest.

    But I think Prince of Persia, with Super Mario like controls, would be a much lesser game.

    My whole point is this: Responsiveness on its own, doesn't mean much, it's heavily based on the game and what it's trying to achieve.
     
    theANMATOR2b, hippocoder and frosted like this.
  13. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Do you mean the first, or the first one in 3D?
    I agree about it predating Assassins Creed, but when playing Assassins Creed Unity I cursed the controls quite a lot. They always look like the player is in control but they are so extremely contextual and sometimes I would do very different things than I intended to do because I was looking in slightly the wrong direction while pressing a button or stuff like that. It's the difference between a systemic solution to traversal like portal has, or a state-machine-like solution like Assassins Creed has. I generally prefer the systemic approach for the more direct and more predictable feel, but the complex animation state machine looks cooler of course. I wonder in how far you can keep controls freeform and just play a mix of premade and IK animations over it to make it look like it was design that way.
     
  14. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    I actually watched a video on the original '89 Prince of Persia, and @AcidArrow is right. The controls were a little disconnected/delayed. If this was intentional or just a side effect of the animation, who knows.

    I remember at the time of actual release, that Prince of Persia really felt entirely different from anything at the time (the controls included momentum). But it's not 'highly responsive'.

    I haven't played AC:Unity, but the freerunning/climbing control in the entire AC franchise is absolutely revolutionary, as is a lot of the animation and interactive work. IIRC, AC was the first game to feature collision response with other characters, a huge step in immersion.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  15. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    PoP played terribly and had an atrocious difficulty level. I played it when it came out and generally everyone was in agreement that it's only saving grace was the rotoscoped animation and how nice it all was. That was enough to keep it in people's hearts along with shadow of the beast and similar style over substance experiences of the time.

    And assassins creed isn't known for its gameplay. It's merely a blockbuster experience that AAA does well. It is very much a spiritual successor to PoP, I do agree there.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  16. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    "In 1991, PC Format named Prince of Persia one of the 50 best computer games ever, highlighting its "unbelievably good animation".[38] In 1996, Computer Gaming World named Prince of Persia the 84th best game ever, with the editors calling it "an acrobatic platformer with amazingly fluid action".[39]"


    AC games were never much for gameplay, the first was shockingly limited, but the animation and controls have been absolutely revolutionary. The combat system has been copied by every melee based AAA third person, the freerunning system is still the best ever made despite being copied again and again.

    I remember playing the first AC, I was never a console guy, and the controls and animation blew me away, but the game play was almost non existent. AC3 was the last one I played, and it was still pretty boring, that said, I constantly went back to play it as reference for controls, AI response and combat design. It's still best in class in many ways.

    Action games never really had deep gameplay though did they? I mean, even competitive FPS isn't exactly game play driven. It took that genre over 20 years to figure out "looting" should be a primary mechanic. The genre always focused on graphics, controls and theme.
     
  17. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,624
    I don't think the difficulty was *that* bad. It just didn't ease you into it at all.

    I haven't played it in a while, but I remember the first level being more or less a huge troll. Like they set it up, so that you would die in every obstacle at least once and you'd have to beat everything with trial and error. (oh you dropped from that ledge without hanging first? DEAD. You changed a screen running? DEAD).

    I think the later stages are better designed. (or at the very least, since you knew what kind of tricks they'd pull on you by that point, you knew to proceed with extreme caution, so the levels seemed fair-ish). The weird controls sort of reinforce the feeling of proceeding cautiously, since they were unresponsive, so even if you mentally had time to react, the controls needed even more time to do what you wanted.

    All of this kinda turned it into a plan and execute type of game, which I think, in the later stages worked.

    Or at the very least, it was a much better game than Prince of Persia 2... Ugh.
     
  18. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    AC Unity is a bad example. Ubi tried to improve the traversal with that game but it didn't work very well. It's only compounded by how demanding it is graphically, so playing it at smooth frames is even now moderately difficult.

    Syndicate controls better.
     
  19. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    AFAIK AC: Unity had to rewrite traversal from scratch as the old system was preventing them moving forward so I suppose it did come with it's own set of problems they'll no doubt iron out.
     
  20. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,943
    If they were that bad and you're praising them then I have to wonder if it isn't simply nostalgia at work here.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  21. nat42

    nat42

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2017
    Posts:
    353
    I don't think it is nostalgia, Prince of Persia isn't that bad, the timing of inputs is part of the challenge of playing that game - it's not like the animation doesn't provide visual feedback for the player.

    Disclaimer: I played the original for a few minutes back in the day and found the movement kind of frustrating, I don't feel I'm very nostalgic for it

    I just saw recently that the Amiga game Gods is getting a remake, now that had bad game feel despite looking fantastic.
     
    Ryiah and AcidArrow like this.
  22. Fera_KM

    Fera_KM

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Posts:
    307
    As much as I agree with the intent and topic of this post,

    I find the original Tomb Raider more fun than it's modern offspring, because the original is a platformer and the newer ones aren't.
    The challenge in the original Tomb Raider is to master the tank controls, and almost all level design choices and puzzles are built around mastering the tank controls, much like mario.
     
  23. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    I don't think tank controls are feasible for selling in the modern era. The problem is it's like cars. Sure, there are more efficient ways to drive a car, or even more fun ways, but if you're a car manufacturer, you will put a steering wheel, pedals and shift stick in, and make more money because you did.
     
  24. nat42

    nat42

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2017
    Posts:
    353
    I think tank controls might be accepted as a novelty. Maybe a retro 3d game, or a game with intentionally interesting controls like Qwop or Surgeon Simulator.
     
  25. Fera_KM

    Fera_KM

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2013
    Posts:
    307
    No of course, I'm not saying tank controls are valid by today's standard by itself.
    But, I think it's almost impossible to replicate the type of game that Tomb Raider and Resident Evil was if you unleash the controls, because you distort so much more of the game design than just the movement.
     
  26. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Yep that's a great point, sorry for being too obtuse to recognise it :)
     
  27. Habitablaba

    Habitablaba

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Posts:
    136
    I would like to submit another example of "omg I can't handle this" controls.
    Baldur's Gate.

    I've picked it up for the first time recently and oh man. It's clunky at best, nearing unplayable.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  28. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Defender has you all beat.
     
    tweedie likes this.
  29. ikazrima

    ikazrima

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    Posts:
    320
    I beat Mechwarrior 4 & G-Nome (as a teenager, latter as a kid). Trying to replay MW4 last year make me wonder to hell and forth how I managed last time with that so many keys controlling different part of the mechs body parts & weapons.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  30. Rabenrecht

    Rabenrecht

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Posts:
    8
    Well, you see, thats kind of the Problem about designing constrol schemes (and UI for that matter): it's very subjective.

    Lets talk about Baldurs Gate as a case study.

    To me the controls and UI of Baldurs Gate are very good: intuitive, functional, easy to use, clear.

    You can select Party members and use the mouse to Point and execute the Action.

    Everything wokrs like you expect it to work:
    - moving the mouse to the edges of the Screen moves the "camera" Position
    - to select Party members you can draw a selection Frame or click on the Party member in the world or their Portrait
    - Standard Windows functionality for selecting works: Holding Ctrl while selecting add to the selection, Holding LeftShift while selecting over the Portraits will add the whole range to the selection
    - left click executes, right click cancels

    None of this had to be explained to me. I just started the game, picked up the mouse and could just play.

    I also like the "Action bar" and the bottom of the Screen: everything the character can do neaty arranged in a line. In comparison I hate the radial menu of Planescape Torment and Temple of Elemental Evil.


    But I'm curious: what makes the Baldus Gate Control so bad in your eyes?
     
    hippocoder and Ryiah like this.
  31. theANMATOR2b

    theANMATOR2b

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Posts:
    7,790
    Nice discussion. Sorry I missed it but Id like to add a couple to the "holy crap these are bad controls / game feel" pile.

    Earthworm Jim. Terrible unresponsive controls - but I HAD to play it cause - Damn those animations looked great!

    Final Fantasy 7 for the first several hours kept me guessing where Cloud was when moving from room to room and having to change direction on the controller to keep moving in the same direction. A terrible carry over from RE, Silent Hill and other previous gen games.
    Later the early 3D Castlevania games used this same crappy control style.
    Red Dead Redemption 1, Man Hunt, Bully, and possibly the first 3D GTA. I dont know how Rockstar could make essentially similar games with similar engines (RDR was slightly different) and totally change up the control scheme for every friggin game.

    Nearly every Wii game that was ported from PS2, Xbox developed for standard controllers.

    Lately (last 2-3 years) I have put down several smaller indie titles due to shoddy control schemes, though I still have an inner voice that calls me names if I give up on a title for such a petty reason. I hate that guy!

    Free tip: Any fps that doesnt allow invert Y will instantly be quit without hesitation. Havent run into one of these in a long time. I think the last one I played was Luigi's Mansion. Did that have some fps elements, when vacuuming ghosts? I cant remember.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  32. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    I agree with @Habitablaba that BG's controls were terrible.

    Don't get me wrong, the series is probably one of the greatest in the history of gaming. But the combat control was totally friggin awful. The AI would override the command inputs constantly. Spellcasting and interrupts were annoying, and pathing was atrocious.

    Even PoE a decade later had awful combat controls since they were based on the same system.

    I think realtime combat and party based top down combat just have issues that are hard to overcome.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  33. Rabenrecht

    Rabenrecht

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Posts:
    8
    That is true. But contrary to other more recent games, AI scripts are entirely optional. There are also some that are really limited is scope and quite non-intrusive.

    As a rule of thump you don't want to give your spellcasters a script, and for your simple melee warriors you want to select Fighter:Defensive.

    So, this point does not hold any ground: if you don't like the results of an AI scripts, choose a different one or none at all. They are an afterthought anyway and the game is pretty much set up under the Assumtion that the Player manages all the partymembers anyway (that is the main reason to have a pause Feature where you can issue commands).

    That is a Feature. It has also nothing to do with controls.

    Maybe you don't understand this feature, but is an intentional and vital part of the game's mechanics.

    It actually forms an essential part of the game's tactical make up. That spells take time and can be interrupted is a fact of life in the gameworld and by transition a fact that has to be considered by the player. And it is good that it exists:
    For one there is in internal logic: higher Level spells have longer casting times, which mean that they offer higher power but come at a higher risk.
    Then it rewards the Player for employing measures to minimize the risk of getting interupted and thus adding an additional layer for the player's skill and system mastery to influence the game.
    And finally it adds an additional Avenue of defense against enemy spellcasters.

    Yeah, I've seen worse, but yeah, the pathing had issues.
    But pathing is not an easy problem and solving it requires a non-trivial amount of computation time.
    Yes, there were some problems (but calling it "atrocious" is a bit much) but the first Baldurs Gate came out in 1998! Show me a title from the same era with a comparable complexity that has better pathfinding and we can talk.

    PoEs gameplay has significant problems. I would consider it much much worse than that of it's predecessors but the reasons for this lie mostly in questionable design decisions and a lack of understanding of why the gameplay of the Infinity Engine games is held in such high regards.

    Thus, PoE's problem is not that it tried to be similar to BG, but that it was only superficially similar without a real understanding of the source.

    Well, what are the system inherent issues in your opinion?
     
  34. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    To be clear, I was not talking about AI scripting, I was talking about commands issued directly in pause or realtime.

    The issue isn't interrupt as a mechanic, the issue was the implementation, in that after being interrupted the AI returned to it's default behaviour.

    You could set auto pausing for interrupt, but then you're constantly reissuing the same commands over and over after they're cleared due to interrupt. And IIRC, interruption was constant making auto pause on interrupt such a hassle that you generally disabled this after.

    This is the fundamental problem with real time party driven + complex attack system. Not overriding ai commands after interrupt could produce poor responsiveness and cause problems but so did the overrides.

    An example would be simple movement, you tell a guy to move to some spot, he's interrupted by enemy entering melee range. Continuing movement would cause parting blow (I think BG had parting blow, my memory isn't exact, this was over a decade ago I last played). So movement had to stop.

    Let's say you queued up two commands, move to point x, shoot fireball at y. By the time your guy began incanting, the enemy positions change, adjusting the fireball order would restart the spellcast time. Plus whatever extra animation cooldowns from cancellation.

    BG was a great game, but it's combat system was OK at best. It would get points for being revolutionary but it was almost an exact port from it's original inspiration: Darklands, which had similar problems. The main innovation was creating seamless environments for combat and exploration. That said, the controls were never, ever, ever the highpoint of BG.
     
    EternalAmbiguity likes this.
  35. theANMATOR2b

    theANMATOR2b

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Posts:
    7,790
    I must never have played that. I remember BG2 and the extension - shadow of amn. I loved that game! Did it have the same controls/issues? I don't remember having any issues with it.
     
  36. Rabenrecht

    Rabenrecht

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2017
    Posts:
    8
    That... has never happened to me. Like, ever. And believe me, I have played a lot of BG (and the other IE titles).

    I'm not sure if I can follow. The spellcasting of one of your PCs gets interrupted. Then what exactly do you expect to happen?

    The action got countered. Of course you need to issue a new order. Or should the PC just cast a random spell next turn?

    Again, all the Infinity Engine games work under the assumption that you micromanage all of your characters.

    BG had no parting blows, Attack of Opportunity or anything of that in any way, shape or form. Your example makes no sense in my eyes.

    No Infinity Engine games has a system for queuing commands. Maybe you are thinking of a different game here?

    Before a PC has actually started to cast the spell, adjusting a target (or issueing an entirely different action) will not restart the casting time. BG works under a strict turn model. If you issue a spell to be cast the PC will use the next available turn to do so. Canceling the action and issueing another one will not change that. The turn structure is global and so the next turn will always come up at the same time.
    Also, there are no animation cooldowns in BG. The animations are a slave to what happens in the game model.

    I mean I totally get that BG's gameplay (and really, gameplay is what we are discussing here, since you made no point about the actual controls) was not your cup of tea.
    But your personal preferences aside the idea that BGs gameplay and combat system is just "OK at best" is objectively wrong in the sense that many, many players think otherwise. Hell, there are to whole games based almost completely on BGs gameplay (IWD 1&2), and those were very well received. Do you really think that Icewind Dale would be such a classic if the gameplay were "OK at best"?
    Or that players would play BG1&2 over and over and over again if the didn't enjoy the gameplay?
     
  37. EternalAmbiguity

    EternalAmbiguity

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    3,144
    This is a bug, not a feature.

    I bolded your declarative statement. I also underlined the subjective anecdotal claim that you're (laughingly) using to attempt to justify your declarative.
     
  38. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    4,436
    Maybe it's time to chill a bit, get ya'll the enhanced edition of BG in the christmas sale, check the game out again in detail over the holidays, and then continue the discussion next year?

    I know I loved BG 1 and I've played through it during school holidays, where I basically was glued to the screen for 12+ hours a day. I know I loved it, but I couldn't tell you for the life of me how the controls worked. And I'm not sure I could get so much into such a game again, because I haven't ever finished BG2, Planescape Torment, or Icewind Dale in spite of starting playthroughs in all of them.
     
    theANMATOR2b likes this.
  39. frosted

    frosted

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    4,044
    I get it, BG is your sacred cow. Look, I loved the game, including playing BG1 using the BG2 engine under the tutu mod. I'll admit that I may have mixed up some of PoE's issues (queueing) with BG, as again, I haven't played in a decade.

    But that's not even a win. Command queuing is an important tool for managing a bunch of guys in detail, for BG to have not had command queues isn't a plus, it's a minus. It means that the controls were even more inadequate.

    I think that perhaps you mid-understand "controls" since you seem to think that mechanics and controls are separate, they're not. Game's need to design their mechanics carefully around the control scheme, and good games achieve solid harmony between all of it's systems.

    Perhaps you have a traditional UX background and don't really understand how control fits in games. Most of your comments about "controls" had to do with the unit selection and screen scrolling, not about combat control which is the most critical component of a game's control scheme. Game mechanics, movement, orders mixed with semi AI driven control is crucial in a game that needs to deal with issues involving realtime combat and multiple units.


    On a more personal note, I've found that often people who nitpick, quote specific subsections and respond in bad faith tend to be tiresome to argue with. If you want to argue in good faith, I'll go, but if this is going to descend into bickering, misquoting and strawmaning I'll pass.
     
  40. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Uh no. That's a really good reason to dump an indie title. I will dump any indie title that dares waste my time like this. Controls don't cost money. Controls aren't thousands of dollars of cutscenes and voiceovers. Controls don't need more than one person. Controls ARE essentially part of the core game!

    Controls are things you begin to get right in the prototyping phase and just take care over. For me, how to play it is pretty much the game.
     
  41. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    Another reason I've dropped a couple of AAA games almost immediately recently is because of what I'll call content fatigue.

    It's nice to fire up a new game, see glorious graphics, stellar presentation, and slick controls, but as soon as I start getting bogged down with "collect this and that," "hacking mini games to stall progress and annoy you," "visit the local merchant to arbitrarily expand the games length...."

    I guess I've become more of a casual gamer these days in the sense of I usually just want to play a game as a break from other things for about half an hour to an hour a day. As such, I just want to jump into something easy to grasp that delivers nonstop, unfiltered gameplay. I don't want to have to learn the slight nuances of a tacked on system that's just standard fair for AAA titles these days. Doesn't mean I want an easy game. I still like gameplay that is borderline impossible to master. Sniper Elite 4 survival mode on the new authentic plus difficulty is my mainstay for that reason.
     
  42. theANMATOR2b

    theANMATOR2b

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Posts:
    7,790
    I agree - however I think this depends on how much the player is enjoying the experience, and if they are continuing to learn and experiment with mechanics of the game while doing these 'side quests' or even main quests.
    I didn't feel I was getting bogged down in Skyrim - while performing all these extra quests, and traveling all over the place. I even enjoyed capturing 'local' containers to place all loot in as a 'holder' while I defeated all the local enemies. After that - load up on all loot, travel back to places that could afford me, and drop off all the 'keepers' in my chest at home, and the books. :)
    The one element that I got tired of fast in Skyrim was the crafting elements. It was novel in the game, but didn't do anything for me fun wise. I did it a couple times - and after that - done. Didn't want to do it any more.

    Another game that kept me going with filler was Shadow of Mordor - just kind of enjoyed doing all the quests, side quests and extra content the game had.

    But generally - I agree - if the game is not engaging - this bogging down to extend the play time gets old fast, and makes the experience more of a chore than entertaining. At that point - time to move on to another game.
     
  43. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    I used to enjoy games with lots of "collect stuff/craft stuff" content, but not anymore. I just don't have the time/mental stamina after working for 8-10 hours at a computer.

    But I feel like content like this just doesn't belong in shooting games. RPG's, fine. I expect a slow and methodical approach to games like that.

    But, well, I'll just be specific. I tried out Homefront Revolution because it's free for the weekend. I dropped it about five minutes into the tutorial. After immediately closing a slew of UI screens telling me about all the crafting and hacking, I thought, " I just don't feel like all this. I wanted to play a video game, not a board game."

    I mean, I feel like there is something fundamentally wrong with this approach in an FPS shooter/action game. The idea of this game is that you are a resistance guerilla fighter in a big city. So you have to be resourceful and use whatever resources are available to fight the enemy. But throwing around arbitrary loot in the game world, forcing the player to spend time walking around looking at the ground to collect it, and then going through tedious menu screens to simply craft whatever the screens tell you that you can craft.... that is not the player being resourceful at all. That is just following menu prompts. There is no decision making. No gameplay at all.

    I get it. Some people like to get tugged around on a short leash and fed treats for holding their poop in. But me, I can hold my poops in. I've been doing that for awhile now.

    Anyway, I'm working on my own masterpiece that will solve all of the gaming worlds problems by strictly demanding that players already know how to walk themselves without a leash and hold their poops in.