Defeat the vermin of the underworld with the help of a fire djinn.



[Poll] I hate videogames

maybe the only reason I dislike DLC is because I'm poor. :p

The game with the blind girl is weird, it's like hey I gotta tell all my blind friends about this! Oh wait they can't play it. Oh well, I like that she's blind though, this is gonna be a really fun game thanks to her disability.

"Simplified mechanics" I fail to see how this is a bad thing, shouldn't you add some context/explanation

"Youtubers" I hate this too. I'm horrified by the fact that everyone now is watching games being played instead of playing it themselves. Almost in a sad way, like I'm becoming the old person with his old hat ways, except that watching Let's Plays is logically wrong. The scary is part is when enough people do it in which case, in a social context, it technically becomes the correct way to experience a game meaning I'd have to do it too.

"Gamers" Eh, I think games should be inclusive.. but... Things like the above is where I draw the line.

"- EA"
well all game companies are evil. They all release bad games unapologetically. Gaming is this weird culture where everyone who's a "true gamer" is supposed to automatically know which games to avoid, and then proceed to praise (or just support, maybe not always praise) the companies that compulsively attempt to exploit them. Gaming is a like pyramid scheme in a way where it's us on top, the casuals on the bottom.

"- SJWs"
What gets me about SJWs is that they never talk about the gameplay, controls, mechanics of a game, they look at things like the amount of females/minorities and how they represented. Very superficial and disconnected from the actual gaming element. But the thing is, all the male gamers are just talking about games through their graphics, violence, and theme/setting, effectively making them no different from SJW's.

"I (like or dislike) this game because it stars a grizzled white guy chainsawing zombies in a 1920s New York and blood splatters everywhere"
Videogames have become t-shirts.

The second crash of videogames is coming soon
You know, that's something I've been wondering about recently. (see my pyramid scheme comment above) Also, maybe there's something telling about the fact that the Wii market just up and left before the 7th gen ended. But maybe that was the gaming crash right there. The survivors are us, the persistent ones, we're the ones keeping this going.
It also makes me wonder if, seeing as it happened to the Wii, it could also happen to mobile gaming. Games like Flappy Bird could just be the Wii Sports of the 8th generation.

9/10, but still terrible? About game-killing features

The funny thing is, Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow, I had to look up how to fight the last boss. Both games have a sort of puzzle to unlocking the final boss, especially Aria. (Nowadays however I would never look up a guide for any reason, even though I had done so for most of my favorite games. Simply because I hadn't implemented such a rule at the time.)

I could give like 100 reasons why I despise Order of Ecclesia, but I don't consider it a 9/10 game, so I guess it doesn't count.
There are many games which I generally dislike, but when I try to like it, I am blocked by one or several reasons. So in effect it is a game-killing feature.

One game that comes close is Ace Combat 5, simply because it's an Ace Combat game and I liked the other four others I have played. (4, Zero, X, and Joint Assault) So in that sense Ace Combat 5 is a 9/10 on paper simply for being part of one of my favorite series of all time, but it's packed to the brim with "game killing features" on a level that it actually astounds me that the other Ace Combat games have miraculously avoided most of these issues.

- the buttons don't work unless you press them really hard. I honestly have no idea how or why they did this but the pressure sensitive buttons on the PS2 must somehow be involved. In other words the makers of Ace Combat 5 had to have deliberately programmed deadzones into the buttons, which would suggest that they criminally insane.
- the dialogue is terribly corny even by Ace Combat standards. One mission actually has wingmen effectively praising how atmospheric the environment is.
- terrible writing. "Razgriz" is a made up myth expositioned to you simply to make the game more epic/symbolic. It's like if your squadron was named the Spoon squadron and the game proceeds to tell you that in the Ace Combat universe, the word Spoon means heavenly protector.
- dialogue system: You must answer yes or no to things your wingmen say by using the dpad. Weirding thing ever.
- your superior officer flips a coin to decide what mission you must undertake, but this would imply that the choice is random, but it isn't.
- you run out of missiles easily, and unlike AC4 you cannot resupply
- the machine gun has been nerfed. It's possible to stream a line of bullets through an enemy but one bullet goes under and the next bullet goes over, because the rate of fire is too slow. It's not a machine gun anymore, it feels more like you're spitting fireballs from Super Mario.
- The garage is totally FUBARED. To buy, sell, or choose a plane for a mission, you have to exit and re-enter the garage to switch from doing to the other. One mission actually limits you to a handful of aircraft so when you're finally ready to deploy on the mission you find you have the wrong plane and you're forced you to redo everything.
- almost no glitches in the other Ace Combat games, but I kept experiencing glitches in AC5
- Terrible mission design, some even boxing you into small combat zones making it impossible to pursue mission targets until the enemy turns around
- A mission that forces you to literally fly as close to the ground as humanly possibly, but the level is filled with trees and flying into a tree simply causes you to fly through it, thereby breaking immersion
- Your wingmen fly extremely close to you and clip through your plane constantly (such as every time you turn left or right) while other times they collide with your and cause you to fail the mission
- Your wingmen are blotted out by huge "W" symbols making them impossible to see or gauge distance between you and them, and in one mission you fail for not being close enough, which in turn increases the likelyhood you will fly into them and crash.
- At the end of the above mission, after exiting the last cave, the enemy threat has subsided, and the characters are literally breathing sighs of relief for successfully escaping, you can still fail for not being close enough (and forced to redo the entire mission over) even though the mission was 2 seconds away from completion.
- The final mission forces you to run out of time in order to proceed, even though running out of time usually ends in mission failure.

I also have this problem with hardware too. For instance the slim Vita with its yellow screen. I actually listed my Vita on ebay the same week I got it and purchased an OLED Vita instead, even though the slim was better in every other way. I heard about the screen being different but it was much worse than I had imagined. People defend the screen, or sugarcoat it, I've even seen a New 3DS XL vs. Slim Vita article say the colors on the screen are "realistic", it astounds me the level of insanity in people. Do you go around adjusting the color settings on each TV and monitor you game on, increasing the yellow until every person on screen looks just barely looks like an alien, and proceed to call it an "improvement"? Because if you don't then why would the logic be any different for a Vita screen.

'Just these four, and leave the rest alone'. A discussion on Players and Parties.

From what I remember of FFT, you get tons of tons of story characters so I have to wonder if there was barely reason to use generics. (considering the story characters can use any of the jobs)

What are you thinking about? (game development edition)

I once had an idea for an Ace Combat themed RPG.
In certain Ace Combat games, there are long range strikes that can K.O. you if you don't evade it by staying out of a certain altitude range. (e.g. 1000-2000 meters) (you can also get far away enough from the blast, obviously, but usually this isn't feasible in time)

I wanted to do this in the RPG, so I had an idea for a type of Defend command that makes your character immune to the attack.
But later I thought of another way of doing it, by making your HP a figurative represenation of your altitude. So if the blast range is 1000-2000, that means you must quickly get your HP below 1000 or above 2000 or else you will be K.O.ed.

In this version, I figure you would have skills that "raise altitude" (increase HP) and "lower altitude" (lower HP) but the raise altitude would cause you to fall afterwards (i.e. poison status) while the lower altitude would induce a regen effect.
I figure the poison status should be stronger than the regen effect in order to balance the two.

What's kewl about this is that characters with higher HP represents that they can fly higher.

9/10, but still terrible? About game-killing features

Dissidia is a perfect example. It could have been one of the greatest action games. The battle system is sex. Not to mention an unprecedented stroke of originality on Square Enix's part. (it was a completely new type of game) But SE couldn't leave well enough alone, they had to diarrhea dump rpg mechanics and baggage for the player to wade through on it until it was beyond redemption.

I once wrote a list of all the things SE did to ruin Dissidia, which made me not very popular:

-Breakable accessories (why do these even exist?)
-bonus icon days (how about, I play the game and not worry about what freakin day of the week it is)
-Chocobo play plans (SIGH)
-As a result of the above two things, leveling is completely out of whack. I finish the game with all 10 characters, but I have Bartz at level 13 while another is at level 26. That's double!! Also, if you play for too long, the chocobo play plan resets. So you're punished for.. no reason basically.
-If you don't attain all the summonstones during a character's story, I have to play their entire story over again for another chance at getting them.
-Blue gates. (optional, non-story gates which don't achieve anything when finished and don't even keep track of whether you've finished them! So I guess they're waste-your-time gates.)
-Dumping a huge variety of booster accessories onto the player right in the first few hours of the game, but not giving the player a single base accessory to use them with. So in other words the player is spammed with items that do nothing.
-orange accessories which don't do anything other accessories don't already do. (e.g. Luck +1, Damage +3%, etc)
- a billion different trade components, and for some reason each one is a wearable accessory that increases luck. (Which is counter intuitive since the game should be focusing on promoting the use of booster accessories)
-as a result, you can rest assured knowing you will never have the right items needed to trade for the item you want, and even when you do, it's completely ambiguous as to whether the trade is actually worth it instead of potentially using that same trade component for an even better item down the line
- AP/KP chance conditions (win the match in 90 seconds, etc. Wow, so original! Whatever happened to just "win the fight"? If it aint broke, dont fix it)
- Rosetta stone increases only 1 accessory slot and only for that character. In other words, you will need a shit ton of rosetta stones, and the only way to get them is to replay stories you've already beaten over and over. Welcome to hell.
- chain skills which literally do nothing but select enemies to fight, which you can do anyway without the use of chain skills. (But it doesn't count as a "chain" unless you use a chain skill.) (And counting as a "chain" means nothing, but the game arbitrarily gives you more KP if you do it this way, because "please use our shitty mechanic, thanks")
- KP lines. (your KP bonuses are lower or higher depending on your level compared to the KP Line # of the gate you're in) WHO CARES??
- Equipping summon stones is an ordeal in of itself. You must select 1 to equip and 5 to reserves. (why not just equip 6 reserves?? Isn't the equipped summon basically just reserve #1?) Furthermore, you must repeat this process for every single character you decide to play. (you can't just use the same setup across all characters, even if you're traveling in a party) If you ask me though, the way it should have worked is: a) the game randomly chooses your summons, b) whenever a summonstone runs out, you equip a new summonstone right then and there, while the victory music is still playing. c) You can equip multiple summons at the same time. d) a combination of the above.
- The Duel Coliseum, which was a servicable mode in the first Dissidia, was butched in DIssidia 012 by being turned into a tower/dungeon game, of some sort, complete with items you cannot keep unless you build a tent. (wtf?) Also, you cannot equip anything in Duel Coliseum anymore, making this mode not very good for leveling your characters, which is the ONE thing this mode was good for in the original Dissidia.

p.s. it's kinda weird that this thread isn't in the videogames section?

9/10, but still terrible? About game-killing features

This happens to me all the time. It's so debilitating that I practically consider it a waste of money to buy games and sometimes wonder why I bother playing games at all.

Rather than listing every game that does this and what the game did wrong, since the list would go on for like 100 pages, it probably would be better if I just list a few of the more common offenses:

- random encounters
- game can't be beaten without looking up a guide
- poor button mapping, especially when clawing is required as a result
- touch controls (except when the game is controlled with touch exclusively and in which touch actually makes sense for the game) at best tolerable on select vita games, not tolerable on WiiU which has resistive touch, massive bulky controller, and a screen that is farther away
- you're playing on vita, 3ds, or wiu and have to use motion controls
- poorly thought out mechanics, maidwork, and/or accounting
- game completely and royally screws you over for not saving or for saving at the wrong time/place
- can't see where you're going in side scrollers due to 2d perspective, rendering them unplayable (see every 2d sonic game ever, except the classics, but even the classics) (also occurs in NES Remix levels were Mario automatically runs)
- fighting games where each player can only look at their own movelists while pausing meaning both players have to take turns pausing instead of being able to look at the same time. Also: having to pause to look up movelists. ("ready... FIGHT!" *pause*)
- Fighting games that don't have movelists in the game at all. (See also the second item on this list)
- cultural context: knowing I'm not entitled to any game that avoids these issues, people not understanding what's wrong with these issues when you point them out, and talented game makers repeating these issues time and time again.

'Just these four, and leave the rest alone'. A discussion on Players and Parties.

Yea but sometimes these decisions are things the game's creator could have (and arguably should have) sorted out himself. It's the creator's job to decide on these sort of things: This happens, then that happens, the the player has to go here, then x joins your party, etc.

When the creator decides to leave in your hands then it immediately raises the question of what exactly is at stake. I could have x join my party and later decides to switch him out for y, the fact remains I didn't have x for the latter portion of the game and I didn't have y for the former portion of the game. In effect, deciding on a party is a zero sum game, all it lets me do is ensure that I've used each party member at least for SOME time, but at that point I'm worrying about things other than beating the next dungeon/boss.
I don't sit down with a spreadsheet and catagorically sort out who's my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc favorite or whatever.

I might do that sort of thing if changing my mind later means sacrificing all the progress I made in leveling those characters. There's a lot of pressure to get the party right the first time. (Dissidia 012 pressures you to commit for five characters for basically your life.)

Sometimes I like to switch up for no reason.

You're being generous, since you're helping ensure that all the characters get used.

The game's narrative calls for the amount of characters that they have, and all of the characters more or less offer something different to the narrative

There are characters that can serve a narrative purpose but never join your party.
Also, I suspect that maybe some games just like to have a large cast (which is fine) without any particular character being essential to the plot. (FF6)

Anyway, maybe we're just thinking of different games.

'Just these four, and leave the rest alone'. A discussion on Players and Parties.

-You can like more than one person's personality. So what do you mean 'wat'?

If you liked them both then you would put both of them in your party and keep it that way. In theory there shouldn't be any switching out shenanigans involved in this. It's one thing if you didn't have enough room to use both characters. But if I had room for four party members in an RPG I would logically pick my 1st favorite, 2nd favorite, 3rd favorite, and 4th favorite characters. The only dilemma would be deciding who my 4th favorite character is. (the order of the first three favorites doesn't particularly matter since they're going in the party anyway)
But there's what like, 9 party members? If I like them all, or at least more than three, I cannot have all of them in my party at once and if I do, I have to elect to switch them up.

That's what I was talking about before. The game has given you too many characters and you're left to sort it out yourself on behalf of the game.

'Just these four, and leave the rest alone'. A discussion on Players and Parties.

author=Feldschlacht IV
What are you even smoking, man. Sometimes I like switching it up just because, not because of any developer mind games or assuming the game wants me to.

"I like Blackwall! But I like Iron Bull too! Fuck it, Blackwall, you're in my party this time, but Iron Bull has dibs next."

Yes, it's possible to like more than the max allowable party slot characters to the point where you rotate them based on skillset, personalty, and contribution to the task at hand.
What does it mean that you rotate them based on their personality? You like character's a personality, then all of a sudden you like character b's personality? wat? If you like both of their personalities you would make both of them permanently in your party unless you were forced to choose one or the other.

If I'm supposed to just pick my favorites, that's one thing, but in that case the game should at least give the characters introductions first. (see FF6, every world of balance character is forced into your party at one point or another *before* they become optional) (another example is Dissidia 012 by giving each hero their own story and then letting you create a party comprised of your 5 favorites)
you're being punished for using your favorites if this is a long-term thing (like some of GRS's ideas, kinda). much better to promote the others than push down a few.
If you don't use your favorite character because the game encouraged you to switch, then eventually the same benefit must be applied to your favorite character so you end up back where you started.
In principle it's the same thing whether the other characters get promoted or existing characters weakened. If the other characters get promoted then your existing characters are punished by not getting the promotion!
Another way to look at it is an ammo supply. On paper it's a good for each gun in let's say Doom to have its own ammo since this way the player uses a variety of weapons. If they shared ammo (or had infinite ammo) then the player would just use the best weapon. Same with party members.
But if all weapons have infinite ammo and each one gets stronger the more you use it, then even if the player decides to use a variety of weapons, the game is punishing him for doing so.
Hence my qualm with too many party members. (combined with exp/leveling that is) Of course, it is always possible to come up with ways to circumvent these issues, and giving characters ammo/fuel/fatigue bars ("punishing" the player for using them) is merely one of those ways.

What are you thinking about? (game development edition)

Did you consider making parallax maps? It can be quite hard to do the eventing for, but it's probably the easiest way to represent real-world locations by simply using a photo/drawing of the place as a map.

I intended to use photos for the battlebacks. But it may be a nuisance finding the right photos, especially for battles on the Eiffel Tower. I may have to settle on photos of random bridges or oil rigs.