Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT IS THE BIGGEST DESIGN FLAW IN GAMES?
Posts
Crystalgate
694
Crystalgate
View playlists
Closeauthor=WolfCoder
I remember defense being useful in Legend of Dragoon. HARK!
Defense in Legend of Dragoon was mostly a free heal with the added benefit of decreasing damage. It also required the game to have limited healing to be useful. At some point of the game I found an item that allows a character to recover MP and I gave it to Meru. After that I pretty much forgot about defense even existing.
LightningLord2
230
I highly value the guard command, as it allows my party to get healed before they die. The damage reduction is also helpful in games such as Persona 4, where the enemy sets up an attack that will one-hit-ko you if you don't guard (and you can forget about element resistances too, as the better ones of these do almighty damage).
MrBekkler
103
In writing, I hate when characters use anachronistic colloquialisms, or phrases people in that time or place would not or should not use. Like Han Solo saying "let's get the hell out of here". In Star Wars there is no religion. There is no concept of heaven or hell and he shouldn't know that word. He could have easily said "Let's go! Let's go! Let's GO!" and the point would have come across without that break in suspension of disbelief.
This is worse in games when, say, a knight in the middle ages says "whoah, dude, cool your jets!" or something equally out of place. It's waaay worse in fan games when lolcat dialogue, 1337 speak, or general internet slang is used in place of legitimate story-expanding writing.
I can tolerate a grammatical mistake or a spelling error once in a while if the writing makes sense for the story. But bad writing in general, probably the biggest flaw.
However, in some cases, the worst writing provides the most entertaining gameplay (ahem: House of the Dead 2 and 3)
This is worse in games when, say, a knight in the middle ages says "whoah, dude, cool your jets!" or something equally out of place. It's waaay worse in fan games when lolcat dialogue, 1337 speak, or general internet slang is used in place of legitimate story-expanding writing.
I can tolerate a grammatical mistake or a spelling error once in a while if the writing makes sense for the story. But bad writing in general, probably the biggest flaw.
However, in some cases, the worst writing provides the most entertaining gameplay (ahem: House of the Dead 2 and 3)
I think the "whoah, dude, cool your jets!" should of be used in a game or movie if a character/s go back in time.
Shinan
4314
author=MrBekkler
In writing, I hate when characters use anachronistic colloquialisms, or phrases people in that time or place would not or should not use. Like Han Solo saying "let's get the hell out of here". In Star Wars there is no religion. There is no concept of heaven or hell and he shouldn't know that word. He could have easily said "Let's go! Let's go! Let's GO!" and the point would have come across without that break in suspension of disbelief.
Well does it also break suspension of disbelief that he speaks a language you understand even though the movie apparently takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? You could easily justify most anachronisms by thinking that the stoy basically has been "translated" from its "original language". (and in translation some terms have to be translated culturally as well)
I mean usually I think it's a lot more stupid when they say stuff like "By Farquaal's tentacles we need to get out of here!".
Of course stuff like u and 2 instead of proper words is always unforgivable but that's completely different. (and as I wrote "always" I came up with a couple of exceptions so almost always)
Billwilliams
1159
Avoid using cheesy accents. If a character is speaking a "foreign language" put the text in brackets or something. Don't use broken English if you don't absolutely have to.
Yoshio
774
i like colloquiel dialogue! D:
(of course i noticed quite a few people do not, so i guess avoid it if you don't want your game to be one of those "quirkey acquired taste" types of games, though I can't see why freeware peeps would want to make anything else)
(of course i noticed quite a few people do not, so i guess avoid it if you don't want your game to be one of those "quirkey acquired taste" types of games, though I can't see why freeware peeps would want to make anything else)
Pole
0
Depending on the genre, I'd say there are a few big design flaws that break a given game:
- poor controls
- steep jumps in difficulty that necessitate grinding
- forcing the character to use a specific party after letting them choose their party in the past
- over-abundance of money
- poor controls
- steep jumps in difficulty that necessitate grinding
- forcing the character to use a specific party after letting them choose their party in the past
- over-abundance of money
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I've... never played a game where scarcity of money bothered me. I can't even imagine such a problem theoretically existing.
If the player is too weak unless they buy everything, that's one thing. That's a problem. But it has nothing to do with money. It just means the designer should have made the player stronger.
But if the player can't afford everything, then you're doing it right. Because if the player can afford everything, then money has no meaning in your game. If the player usually can afford everything, then money usually has no meaning in your game. The right way to do money - the only way that has meaning - is to make it difficult or impossible to afford everything.
I reiterate that this topic is retarded because "biggest" can have two meanings, and nothing that anyone has suggested falls under either one. Either we're talking about the most common problems, or the most serious problems. The most common problems would be things that are problems that exist in every single game ever made, without exception, and are thus by nature things that none of us will be able to solve. The most serious problems would be if a game actually destroyed the entire planet (in real life) as soon as it was turned on, or intiated some other similar sort of disaster. This thread is basically just people listing their pet peeves, which has nothing to do with the topic.
If the player is too weak unless they buy everything, that's one thing. That's a problem. But it has nothing to do with money. It just means the designer should have made the player stronger.
But if the player can't afford everything, then you're doing it right. Because if the player can afford everything, then money has no meaning in your game. If the player usually can afford everything, then money usually has no meaning in your game. The right way to do money - the only way that has meaning - is to make it difficult or impossible to afford everything.
I reiterate that this topic is retarded because "biggest" can have two meanings, and nothing that anyone has suggested falls under either one. Either we're talking about the most common problems, or the most serious problems. The most common problems would be things that are problems that exist in every single game ever made, without exception, and are thus by nature things that none of us will be able to solve. The most serious problems would be if a game actually destroyed the entire planet (in real life) as soon as it was turned on, or intiated some other similar sort of disaster. This thread is basically just people listing their pet peeves, which has nothing to do with the topic.
The biggest design flaw should exist.
So you should read this as : "What is the biggest existing design flaw in games?" Not "What could possibly come to be the most destructive design flaw in games?"
So you should read this as : "What is the biggest existing design flaw in games?" Not "What could possibly come to be the most destructive design flaw in games?"
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, the most serious problem that I know of that exists is in Russian Roulette. Where not only does the loser die, but there's no skill involved and thus no possible way to prevent dying. (Lots of other games involve the death of one or both parties, but almost always because they failed a test of skill. For example, Roman gladiator arena matches.)
If we're talking purely about video games, and not other types of games, then my first-page post about the game that randomly deletes files from your hard drive as you play might be as dangerous as it gets. Unless someone's made a game that hacks into the military's nuclear program and starts a nuclear war when you lose.
How about a nice game of chess?
If we're talking purely about video games, and not other types of games, then my first-page post about the game that randomly deletes files from your hard drive as you play might be as dangerous as it gets. Unless someone's made a game that hacks into the military's nuclear program and starts a nuclear war when you lose.
How about a nice game of chess?
Crystalgate
694
One very common, and often also bad design flaw, is giving the player tools that are based on flavor, but lacks functionality.
Imagine a sniper rifle in an FPS where you never face enemies from a great range. That would be rather bad. This one error isn't very common, heck I can't even think of a single example of an FPS that gets this part wrong. However, if we move on to RPGs this problem becomes almost a rule rather than an exception.
Let's look at a sleep spell. The problem that spell solves (if it works) is enemies being able to do something. However, in most RPGs I've played, you can just go on an offense and heal up whatever damage you take. That means enemies being able to do stuff isn't really a problem and consequently, the situation the sleep spell is designed to solve isn't a problem. It shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that few are using skills that solves non-problematic situations, but apparently it does.
It's not only RPGs that suffers from this design flaw. The Megaman series for example, is more often than not also hit. Usually Megaman will get at least one weapon which is almost useless outside of hitting a boss' weakness. What I think RPGs and the Megaman series has in common is that the tools given to the player are decided before anyone has looked at which problems the player will face. RPGs often hands the player skills based on the idea that those skills simple should exist or based on a character concept. The Megaman series has a self imposed rule of giving the player at least eight weapons from bosses as well as other self imposed rules based on what weapons existed in previous Megaman games.
Imagine a sniper rifle in an FPS where you never face enemies from a great range. That would be rather bad. This one error isn't very common, heck I can't even think of a single example of an FPS that gets this part wrong. However, if we move on to RPGs this problem becomes almost a rule rather than an exception.
Let's look at a sleep spell. The problem that spell solves (if it works) is enemies being able to do something. However, in most RPGs I've played, you can just go on an offense and heal up whatever damage you take. That means enemies being able to do stuff isn't really a problem and consequently, the situation the sleep spell is designed to solve isn't a problem. It shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that few are using skills that solves non-problematic situations, but apparently it does.
It's not only RPGs that suffers from this design flaw. The Megaman series for example, is more often than not also hit. Usually Megaman will get at least one weapon which is almost useless outside of hitting a boss' weakness. What I think RPGs and the Megaman series has in common is that the tools given to the player are decided before anyone has looked at which problems the player will face. RPGs often hands the player skills based on the idea that those skills simple should exist or based on a character concept. The Megaman series has a self imposed rule of giving the player at least eight weapons from bosses as well as other self imposed rules based on what weapons existed in previous Megaman games.
author=Crystalgate
One very common, and often also bad design flaw, is giving the player tools that are based on flavor, but lacks functionality.
Imagine a sniper rifle in an FPS where you never face enemies from a great range. That would be rather bad. This one error isn't very common, heck I can't even think of a single example of an FPS that gets this part wrong. However, if we move on to RPGs this problem becomes almost a rule rather than an exception.
Let's look at a sleep spell. The problem that spell solves (if it works) is enemies being able to do something. However, in most RPGs I've played, you can just go on an offense and heal up whatever damage you take. That means enemies being able to do stuff isn't really a problem and consequently, the situation the sleep spell is designed to solve isn't a problem. It shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that few are using skills that solves non-problematic situations, but apparently it does.
It's not only RPGs that suffers from this design flaw. The Megaman series for example, is more often than not also hit. Usually Megaman will get at least one weapon which is almost useless outside of hitting a boss' weakness. What I think RPGs and the Megaman series has in common is that the tools given to the player are decided before anyone has looked at which problems the player will face. RPGs often hands the player skills based on the idea that those skills simple should exist or based on a character concept. The Megaman series has a self imposed rule of giving the player at least eight weapons from bosses as well as other self imposed rules based on what weapons existed in previous Megaman games.
That's why I <3 clever use of status effects, and sometimes almost requiring their use. You run into a monster that hits a lot harder than you think it should? Blind it!
Rhuan
110
Too many RPGs you can just use the formulaic "attack, attack, heal, attack, attack..." and largely disregard almost all status effects except when they happen to you and then you use a slightly different form of heal and go on, or you get very annoyed because you have no appropriate heal available, and so just ahve to play on with a handicap or die.
If damage couldn't be healed so easily, or if it couldn't be healed so frequently, say, if you could only heal one character per turn and you have four to keep alive, and each turn two people could each be half killed, then you need to do something to lower the damage doing ability of the opponent, such as blind them or put one of them to sleep. Alternatively someone will complain that it's just all too hard...
If damage couldn't be healed so easily, or if it couldn't be healed so frequently, say, if you could only heal one character per turn and you have four to keep alive, and each turn two people could each be half killed, then you need to do something to lower the damage doing ability of the opponent, such as blind them or put one of them to sleep. Alternatively someone will complain that it's just all too hard...
author=Crystalgate
Let's look at a sleep spell. The problem that spell solves (if it works) is enemies being able to do something. However, in most RPGs I've played, you can just go on an offense and heal up whatever damage you take. That means enemies being able to do stuff isn't really a problem and consequently, the situation the sleep spell is designed to solve isn't a problem. It shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that few are using skills that solves non-problematic situations, but apparently it does.
LOTS of games are making strides in this area. Etrian Odyssey has Sleeping enemies take double physical damage. Persona has Poison cut the victim's STR in half (and they don't even use Blind). Also, if we're assuming that all games should be made according to basic 'good game design' then there should never be a situation in which you can simply 'go on an offense and heal up' as a flat-out better strategy than everything else.
Although, Status Effects aside, I agree giving a player a 'tool' that has limited functionality is dumb.
On the topic of difficulties, "easy modo is lame"
The Touhou series generally lets you complete the game on easy (excluding six) but you get better endings if you complete higher difficulty levels. Improving in a game, I think, should be rewarded. That's why I'm still trying to beat Touhou 6 in Normal mode; I want to get to Remilia, since Easy only lets you fight up to Sakuya.
Biggest design flaw in games? Never difficulty, really; I'd say slow walk speed. Or not telling the player where to go somewhat.
The Touhou series generally lets you complete the game on easy (excluding six) but you get better endings if you complete higher difficulty levels. Improving in a game, I think, should be rewarded. That's why I'm still trying to beat Touhou 6 in Normal mode; I want to get to Remilia, since Easy only lets you fight up to Sakuya.
Biggest design flaw in games? Never difficulty, really; I'd say slow walk speed. Or not telling the player where to go somewhat.
Radnen
1806
A design flaw in professional RPG's: The items you never use.
In DA2, there are shop vendors that sell weapons that you just look at but never buy. I'm playing through the game 4 times (beat it once), and I've never had to buy anything from the vendors.
There are many great sounding items and stuff, but its usually at lower level than my current equipment, oh, and the fact that the other party members can't equip armor. That means 95% of the items in DA2 are worthless (boots, helmets, gloves, armor, many weapons, rings, amulets). I can't even fathom as to why they did that. It's too much work for an underused commodity.
In DA2, there are shop vendors that sell weapons that you just look at but never buy. I'm playing through the game 4 times (beat it once), and I've never had to buy anything from the vendors.
There are many great sounding items and stuff, but its usually at lower level than my current equipment, oh, and the fact that the other party members can't equip armor. That means 95% of the items in DA2 are worthless (boots, helmets, gloves, armor, many weapons, rings, amulets). I can't even fathom as to why they did that. It's too much work for an underused commodity.
