Most annoying non-obvious things in modern gaming

[PorkyThePaladin]

Animations are great. For example, in Metro Exodus, your shitty starting revolver is single action, meaning after you pull the trigger, you have to pull the hammer back with your thumb or other finger before being able to shoot again. This makes shooting feel a lot more visceral than the "pew pew pew" of a typical shooter.

 

[LarryTyphoid]

Animations are great. For example, in Metro Exodus, your shitty starting revolver is single action, meaning after you pull the trigger, you have to pull the hammer back with your thumb or other finger before being able to shoot again. This makes shooting feel a lot more visceral than the "pew pew pew" of a typical shooter.

I don't mind animations on guns, like reload animations for example, because those are actions that are too complex for the player to do, so it's normal to see your character handle that on your behalf. I haven't played Metro Exodus, but it sounds like it's just a gun with a slower rate-of-fire given a bit of flavor with a fitting animation.

If we're talking a game that simulates the functions of an actual weapon, like directly interacting with all the mechanisms on a gun, then there's Receiver, which looks like this:

If this game had intricate first-person animations that gave your player character detailed animations for all the guns' functions, then it'd feel a lot less like you're actually interacting with the gun as you yourself, the player, and it'd also be a lot less responsive when playing.

 

[J1M]

can we get some communal hatred for the devs that make games that can't be made full screen and borderless windowed? it's the 21st century, i should never have to alt-tab out of a game to look something up, and who doesn't have more than one monitor these days?

Also, why is the DS the only time anyone has put effort into utilizing a second screen?

You'd think some hardware manufacturers would want to double the number of gaming monitors sold and write a cheque for a few high profile games to implement this. Video card manufacturers would benefit as well since hardware requirements would naturally be a little higher to render more pixels.

 

[J1M]

A lot of people mentioned the "hold until circle fills" to interact with the environment but it seems Destiny 2 takes it to the next level by making you hold enter to navigate various menus and accept EULAs

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/249768565?sort=0&page=0

No Man's Sky does that as well. It's console centric programming. I dunno if I said it here or not, but input devices are getting ultra sensitive and it's better to have some sort of confirmation period instead of just having stuff happening. It might've been an error for all we know, pushing a button by accident.

It is a compromise that devs like because it means you can have phone-style menu changes where they take effect instantly instead of having to store a form state and then offer okay/cancel options before the changes are serialized.

 

[Elthosian]

There's something weird about Thief's fpp mechanics, like garret has a longer neck, arms, legs, etc than any normal human. It's like he's slenderman or something. It's still one of the best games of all time.

Ah, the good old Mr. Gibbon effect.

Edit; ffs it ate up the hyperlink: https://www.it-he.org/sshock.php

 

[Elthosian]

A lot of people mentioned the "hold until circle fills" to interact with the environment but it seems Destiny 2 takes it to the next level by making you hold enter to navigate various menus and accept EULAs

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/249768565?sort=0&page=0

No Man's Sky does that as well. It's console centric programming. I dunno if I said it here or not, but input devices are getting ultra sensitive and it's better to have some sort of confirmation period instead of just having stuff happening. It might've been an error for all we know, pushing a button by accident.

It is a compromise that devs like because it means you can have phone-style menu changes where they take effect instantly instead of having to store a form state and then offer okay/cancel options before the changes are serialized.

I agree in principle but there are many instances where it’s done to navigate menus that don’t involve any config changes. That’s why the EULA thing in particular seemed egregious to me. I doubt there’s a person in this world that would be bothered by “accidentally” pushing the “I ain’t reading this bs” key…

 

[copebot]

-I hate that white jizz they put in places where you're supposed to climb/interact. I'm not fucking retarded, let me find it on my own.

It's acceptable when you can toggle it off/on. Otherwise I suppose they do it to disguise the fact they were unable or lazy to put assets that can be clearly distinguishable from others. retarded art direction

It's a direct consequence of modern gaming's signal-to-noise ratio. In an OLD game, if you saw a thing, it was probably a thing you were meant to interact with that did something. In a modern MORE GRAPHICS game, most of what you see is little more than graphical clutter, having no interactable functionality, and it becomes increasingly difficult to sort out what you can actually do anything with from something that just exists to take up screenspace. Thus there is a widening gap between "things you can see" and "things that are actually part of the game", and thus glowies are used to mark interactables from worldspace clutter. Otherwise it would be deeply frustrating trying to interact with things that LOOK like you should logically be able to do something with, only to find that you can't, and there's no explanation of why.

And then it becomes a vicious circle. Glowies become the default and game designers build levels and play-test the game with glowies switched on.

I remember disabling them in the original Dishonored, because I wanted an experience closer to Thief. It worked out pretty well in general, but there was some level where I just got completely stuck and couldn't for the life of me figure out where I am supposed to go, not because I am retarded but because it was not at all apparent. I think it was during one of the segments where you are at the home base with the conspirators. I toggled glowies on, solved the problem and then got on with it.

tl;dr: Even if you are given an opt-out, the game is designed with opt-in in mind making opt-out a less polished experience.

Frobbable objects light up in Thief 1 and Thief 2, though. While you can't see it from across the room, it does highlight from a considerable distance. I think the glowies were a concession to the console player and the increased distance that the player is likely to be from the screen combined with the lower resolution of pre-HD television displays.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

can we get some communal hatred for the devs that make games that can't be made full screen and borderless windowed? it's the 21st century, i should never have to alt-tab out of a game to look something up, and who doesn't have more than one monitor these days?

Also, why is the DS the only time anyone has put effort into utilizing a second screen?

You'd think some hardware manufacturers would want to double the number of gaming monitors sold and write a cheque for a few high profile games to implement this. Video card manufacturers would benefit as well since hardware requirements would naturally be a little higher to render more pixels.

The DS already comes with the second screen. People like having options, but requiring specific hardware to play is a hassle or too expensive to bother with (like having to buy a new console instead of a last gen port). A bunch of games could use the N64 RAM expansion pack, but for those that required it (Dk64 and Majora's Mask) Nintendo just included them in the box. For Perfect Dark, the player has to study the back of the box. If you don't have the pack and the store doesn't have one to sell, or you don't feel like buying it, there's a good chance you're putting PD back on the shelf.

 

[Alienman]

Thought it said Perfect Dank at first.

 

[quixotic]

Unnecessary crafting systems.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

Unnecessary crafting systems.

Bump-up - broken unnecessary crafting systems.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

Bloated playtime that turns the game into a full-time job.

Always-online DRM.

Shit like 'dailies' and 'seasons' with timed content. I never really encountered it in games I play, but if I see this shit, I tend to pass.

 

[J1M]

can we get some communal hatred for the devs that make games that can't be made full screen and borderless windowed? it's the 21st century, i should never have to alt-tab out of a game to look something up, and who doesn't have more than one monitor these days?

Also, why is the DS the only time anyone has put effort into utilizing a second screen?

You'd think some hardware manufacturers would want to double the number of gaming monitors sold and write a cheque for a few high profile games to implement this. Video card manufacturers would benefit as well since hardware requirements would naturally be a little higher to render more pixels.

The DS already comes with the second screen. People like having options, but requiring specific hardware to play is a hassle or too expensive to bother with (like having to buy a new console instead of a last gen port). A bunch of games could use the N64 RAM expansion pack, but for those that required it (Dk64 and Majora's Mask) Nintendo just included them in the box. For Perfect Dark, the player has to study the back of the box. If you don't have the pack and the store doesn't have one to sell, or you don't feel like buying it, there's a good chance you're putting PD back on the shelf.

That's a straw man. Most DS games have the same gameplay as GBA games, but the second screen provides convenience by absorbing UI elements or showing details normally hidden behind a button press.

Adding dual monitor support to an RTS would not create a requirement. It would show statistics and a blown up minimap. To push hardware sales, the obvious game would be something competitive like DOTA2.

But there's no reason why a game like Deus Ex couldn't display your objectives on a second monitor along with ammo counts for different weapons.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Having to press less buttons to do things is a change to gameplay

It would be extra required for competitive games because while you are bringing up the score screen and covering up the game, your opponent can simply glance to the other screen while he's hardscoping down the corridor.

 

[Ezekiel]

can we get some communal hatred for the devs that make games that can't be made full screen and borderless windowed? it's the 21st century, i should never have to alt-tab out of a game to look something up, and who doesn't have more than one monitor these days?

Reminds me, games auto-pausing when you click outside of the window. Almost every modern AAA game does it. Maybe I want to do something else while glancing at your dull cutscene or waiting for time to pass/an event to end in the game world.

They do it with end credits as well, but those should be skippable anyway. If I made a game, it would just end without credits. Why presume you are so important that they must be placed after your ending in an interactive medium? My credits would be in the menu.

 

[J1M]

Having to press less buttons to do things is a change to gameplay

It would be extra required for competitive games because while you are bringing up the score screen and covering up the game, your opponent can simply glance to the other screen while he's hardscoping down the corridor.

Nonsense. People play competitive games with suboptimal monitors, video settings, and a wide variety of hardware. It would not be anywhere near the definition of 'required'.

Would people feel like it might give them an edge? Yes, that's the psychological need the marketing would rely on to sell product.

Also, consider how insane it is to say we can't make games better because of anything tied to eSports.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

We can, but it would be treated as a requirement because not having it would put you at a big disadvantage. Consider your own question about why nobody has put effort into this other than the DS then, since it's free money on the table with no drawbacks.

 

[ds]

Reminds me, games auto-pausing when you click outside of the window. Almost every modern AAA game does it. Maybe I want to do something else while glancing at your dull cutscene or waiting for time to pass/an event to end in the game world.

Or mute audio or minimize the window. This isn't the 90s anymore, fullscreen windowed mode requires none of that shit. At least for libSDL-based Linux ports SDL_VIDEO_MINIMIZE_ON_FOCUS_LOSS=0 will often get rid of the minimizing if the game doesn't have an option for it.

They do it with end credits as well, but those should be skippable anyway. If I made a game, it would just end without credits. Why presume you are so important that they must be placed after your ending in an interactive medium? My credits would be in the menu.

Even if the credits aren't skippable, you can just turn off the game at that point if you don't want to see them lol. Just kill the processes if needed. Most end credits tend to be skippable though.

I do like that games (and other entertainment) still credit individuals. Or at least some of them since its not unheard of for people who have left the studio before the release to not be credited. If anything, recognizing the people who have contributed to something should be the default everywhere.

There really isn't an excuse for having really slow fixed scroll speed without letting the player manually scroll the credits (forwards and backwards) via keyboard or mouse input at more reasonable speeds.

More are annoying and also much more common than unskippable ending credits are unskippable into movies and logos. Even more so if the game is unstable and the game is practically taunting you after every crash. If I can't get to the main menu of your game withing a second (presuming shaders are already compiled from a previous launch) then you are doing something wrong.

 

[-M-]

Ancient aliens plot lines.

Saw it in The Dig, then every Bioware game starting with Neverwinter Nights, Halo, Dead Space, and plenty of others. It's a way for the writers to signal to the audience that in any sane world they shouldn't be getting paid for doing this.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Another thing is fucking pseudo-realism chores added to many modern games. Find water, find food, cook it, etc. Do I need to wash dishes and take shit as well?

 

[J1M]

We can, but it would be treated as a requirement because not having it would put you at a big disadvantage. Consider your own question about why nobody has put effort into this other than the DS then, since it's free money on the table with no drawbacks.

We live in an age where people play competitive modes against people who pay for in-game advantages. Would a second monitor be a measureable advantage? Maybe. Big? No.

Reasons it doesn't happen:
1. When multiplatform is the target, PC SKU is a distant third consideration because it doesn't have a strict quality gate that needs to be passed for release.

2. Monitor manufacturers don't want to foot the cost of paying for the feature to get the ball rolling unless they can find a way to capture the monitor sales. Contrast with far more gimmicky feature pushes in the past, where sales were captured via proprietary g-sync or physx chips in hardware.

3. Games are shipping barely functional. Time and talent for anything beyond the microtransaction store (including core gameplay improvements) doesn't exist.

4. There will be a PR backlash. Sub-average gamers will screech. The first game to implement this will probably take a minor sales hit. It would be best if it appeared as a patch for an existing title or a singleplayer game than a distraction at launch.

 

[Wayward Son]

Open world for the sake of it. I get why it became popular, and I do think a *small* hub world between missions is alright, but if it’s not gonna add anything but time-wasting to gameplay then there’s no point to it. Ubisoft games are the biggest culprits, but I will say that at least in AC1-3, the open world roaming was at least a good part of the gameplay with the (admittedly sometimes rough) parkour, and assassinations, but a lot of games are out now where there’s 30 hours of the actual gameplay/plot but 70 hours of random bullshit.
Some games need open world to work. Bethesda games rely on their open world and exploration of the world as the primary form of gameplay. Might and Magic, similarly, relies on exploring things in your own path in a large open world as the primary form of gameplay. Can anyone say that Wiz I-III/V would’ve been better if Llylgamyn was fully explorable? Or if you had to directly control your ship in Mass Effect rather than just top down directing it within clusters? Small hubs are better imo for most games where they don’t want to just have a mission select screen. I can’t even finish the modern games I like cause there’s just so much fluff in between the plot progression (ie Mass Effect Andromeda, AssCreed Odyssey)

 

[Levenmouth]

Open world for the sake of it. I get why it became popular, and I do think a *small* hub world between missions is alright, but if it’s not gonna add anything but time-wasting to gameplay then there’s no point to it. Ubisoft games are the biggest culprits, but I will say that at least in AC1-3, the open world roaming was at least a good part of the gameplay with the (admittedly sometimes rough) parkour, and assassinations, but a lot of games are out now where there’s 30 hours of the actual gameplay/plot but 70 hours of random bullshit.
Some games need open world to work. Bethesda games rely on their open world and exploration of the world as the primary form of gameplay. Might and Magic, similarly, relies on exploring things in your own path in a large open world as the primary form of gameplay. Can anyone say that Wiz I-III/V would’ve been better if Llylgamyn was fully explorable? Or if you had to directly control your ship in Mass Effect rather than just top down directing it within clusters? Small hubs are better imo for most games where they don’t want to just have a mission select screen. I can’t even finish the modern games I like cause there’s just so much fluff in between the plot progression (ie Mass Effect Andromeda, AssCreed Odyssey)

I found that this is really noticeable in series that aren't typically open-world.

I played FF15 last year for about 15 hours before getting bored with it. In the 15 hours, I drove around the first zone (desert) and I think I got on the ship. Almost nothing happened.
Compare this to other FF games:

• FF15 mobile (basically abridged FF15): you beat the whole game in that time
• FF10: don't remember, but you would be somewhere in the middle of the game by then, probably know what Yuna is up to and having done the awkward laughing scene
• FF8: you would already have led an amphibious assault, gone to a dinner party, planned a political assassination, gotten iced and one of your companion's garden would get missiled, also middle of the game
• FF7: Aerith would have long been stabby-stabbied and you would be doing flashbacks

So we now have games with similar volume of content stretched out by the mostly-empty open world, while there are also more games out there in general. Unsurprisingly, nobody actually finds out how the story ends.

 

[Elthosian]

Open world for the sake of it. I get why it became popular, and I do think a *small* hub world between missions is alright, but if it’s not gonna add anything but time-wasting to gameplay then there’s no point to it. Ubisoft games are the biggest culprits, but I will say that at least in AC1-3, the open world roaming was at least a good part of the gameplay with the (admittedly sometimes rough) parkour, and assassinations, but a lot of games are out now where there’s 30 hours of the actual gameplay/plot but 70 hours of random bullshit.
Some games need open world to work. Bethesda games rely on their open world and exploration of the world as the primary form of gameplay. Might and Magic, similarly, relies on exploring things in your own path in a large open world as the primary form of gameplay. Can anyone say that Wiz I-III/V would’ve been better if Llylgamyn was fully explorable? Or if you had to directly control your ship in Mass Effect rather than just top down directing it within clusters? Small hubs are better imo for most games where they don’t want to just have a mission select screen. I can’t even finish the modern games I like cause there’s just so much fluff in between the plot progression (ie Mass Effect Andromeda, AssCreed Odyssey)

I'm baffled at how many developers have copied the "climb tower, unlock shitty side-content" with tons of pointless collectibles. I already dislike most games whose appeal is basically being a Demon's Souls clone, but at least those copy something worth playing. Nioh 2, for instance, makes for a really enjoyable co-op experience with comparatively little filler. What's the point in getting 100 of the same item just to unlock some slightly more powerful armor or, even worse, a skin? I know we can't expect all games to be like Hollow Knight or Deus Ex, but man it really was amazing to find hidden stuff in the form of new spells/charms or upgrade canisters because these actually impacted gameplay. And even that is not necessary, Rain World has very few "upgrades" yet it is amazing due to how each new gimmick or enemy interacts with the rest and makes you rethink your approach to most situations.

Open world for the sake of it. I get why it became popular, and I do think a *small* hub world between missions is alright, but if it’s not gonna add anything but time-wasting to gameplay then there’s no point to it. Ubisoft games are the biggest culprits, but I will say that at least in AC1-3, the open world roaming was at least a good part of the gameplay with the (admittedly sometimes rough) parkour, and assassinations, but a lot of games are out now where there’s 30 hours of the actual gameplay/plot but 70 hours of random bullshit.
Some games need open world to work. Bethesda games rely on their open world and exploration of the world as the primary form of gameplay. Might and Magic, similarly, relies on exploring things in your own path in a large open world as the primary form of gameplay. Can anyone say that Wiz I-III/V would’ve been better if Llylgamyn was fully explorable? Or if you had to directly control your ship in Mass Effect rather than just top down directing it within clusters? Small hubs are better imo for most games where they don’t want to just have a mission select screen. I can’t even finish the modern games I like cause there’s just so much fluff in between the plot progression (ie Mass Effect Andromeda, AssCreed Odyssey)

I found that this is really noticeable in series that aren't typically open-world.

I played FF15 last year for about 15 hours before getting bored with it. In the 15 hours, I drove around the first zone (desert) and I think I got on the ship. Almost nothing happened.
Compare this to other FF games:

• FF15 mobile (basically abridged FF15): you beat the whole game in that time
• FF10: don't remember, but you would be somewhere in the middle of the game by then, probably know what Yuna is up to and having done the awkward laughing scene
• FF8: you would already have led an amphibious assault, gone to a dinner party, planned a political assassination, gotten iced and one of your companion's garden would get missiled, also middle of the game
• FF7: Aerith would have long been stabby-stabbied and you would be doing flashbacks

So we now have games with similar volume of content stretched out by the mostly-empty open world, while there are also more games out there in general. Unsurprisingly, nobody actually finds out how the story ends.

It gets even worse. From what I've heard, FFVII Remake consists of a massive amount of filler content padding a strictly linear game because, of course, the greedy idiots had to remake a 5-10 hour section into a 40-50 hour action RPG. They even turned a slightly challenging enemy that appeared in random encounters into a boss, ffs.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Ooooh, I got a great one!

Enchantment visual effects on weapons in new age isometric RPGs. Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, etc. Enchant your weapon for some bonus stats/damage, and BOOM, your cool medieval sword now looks like a fucking glowstick... God these things are ugly.

They show the mental age of developers too. How old do you have to be to think that making your weapon glow and shit is cool?