[:plant:] "If _I_ were a game designer"

Pet peeves about a genre or a particular game? Which larger or smaller design details would you do differently were you given the chance, and how?

For instance, I have a problem with reloading in FPS. Most games have lenghty and detailed reload animations and it makes sense that a machinegun with belt ammunition would take a long time to reload, but what I don't like are the little inconsistencies about it. Some games opt for making you stuck for the duration of the reload, before you can do anything else like switch to another weapon. Some games let you interrupt the reload animation to switch to another weapon, but once you pull out the previous weapon, you have to start the reload animation all over again.

It's particularly annoying when you have a weapon with ammo in the clip, and pressing reload immediately reduces the ammo count to zero, yet the ammo count doesn't fill up until the very end of the reload animation, even if you clearly see the fresh clip is already in the gun. Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 did this, there is an infuriating little pause between sliding the clip into the gun, and the ammo count blinking to life. It's lead me to switching to another weapon right as I thought the pistol was reloaded, only to switch back to the pistol after my shotgun runs out and there's a Tank still rushing at me, and discover the pistol starts the reload animation all over again.


What I'd do, is make the reload out of not one long animation, but several shorter ones, each one differently interruptable depending on the situation.

For instance, emptying the clip out of the gun would leave the gun without a clip until the next animation slides a fresh clip.
If you switch to another gun, or got hit, or otherwise interrupted before sliding a new clip, the gun would not magically have an (empty) clip inside when you pull it out again.
The next animation would slide the clip in, and if you interrupted that, the fresh clip would still be there, part way or all the way, depending where you got.

If I didn't shoot all the bullets before reloading, there would be one more bullet in the chamber, it would still show in the ammo count, no matter when you interrupt any of the animations, and you wouldn't need to pull the slider back to complete the sequence, the ammo count would blink to full as soon as you finished sliding the clip in properly. Until that click it would show "1".
If I had shot the last bullet, then naturally pulling the slider would be another animation, after which the ammo count would be full again.


It's a minor detail, but it's caused me many deaths in games like Call of Duty 4 and Left 4 Dead. With more and more attention being paid to details and realism, it makes no sense for a soldier to toss away a half empty clip, start putting in a fresh one, get knocked back by an explosion and notice another empty clip has suddenly appeared on his gun, forcing him to toss it away as well and arduously slide a new one in. And then wait two more seconds before being able to fire the bullets.



The first Mafia game went further, making you lose any ammo in a clip when you reloaded a gun with ammo left in it. I would love to see something like that done in something like ArmA or STALKER, where you could also handle inventory, with half empty clips, refilling old ones etc, but it's obviously not necessary in most contemporary shooters.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Rocket/grenade splash in recent games, especially halo, are a joke. Players can just spam them in close range without consequence. I would like to see a return to the splash size in the original Halo. There would also have to be less availability of grenades in general since grenade spammers would reap more rewards with bigger splash zones.

To go a little further with that, I feel that grenade damage should actually be amplified if it is in an enclosed space, i.e. a small room. Aside from that though, I do agree that unless it is in said small room, the damage it does should be greatly reduced.

My pet peeve is with games' stories. I believe that they should have less deus ex machina and more of characters actually succumbing to fate. If a character gets stuck in a situation where he/she should die, then they should die.

I play games for their stories more often than not, and I have problems getting into the stories because of characters getting out of impossible situations. It is okay, but when the entire friggen story is filled with this kind of thing....come on...

George R.R. Martin has no problems killing off main characters. Niether should Bioware.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I'd like to see a lengthy rpg where they manage to actually keep the story interesting and the difficulty balanced for more than half the game. Far too often, the first half of a game is really involving with a well thought out story then towards the end either becomes a simple chasing the bad guy around effort or gets completely nonsensical. Given how much companies spend on graphics and shit, you'd think they could hire a decent story-writed from time to time. I'd also like to see shoplifting and simple murder of shopkeepers implemented more often. I know some games do it to a better or worse extent but it's still really frustrating when playing a more "traditional" rpg and you're tooling up to save the world by killing the end boss and some stuck up shop keeper still demands full price for all the gear he has, with no recourse to just taking it off him. Also, it's slightly ridiculous that shop keepers have bottomless pockets full of gold and will happily buy any item you have in whatever quantities you have it. Also it'd be nice to see more games where the main character isn't the centre of what's going on in the world. One of the best things about FFXII was that Vaan wasn't central to world events. He influenced things but the actual story in the wider sense was about Ashe, not Vaan, which was refreshing.

Also if I was a developer, I'd realise that making a game open world and hiding things in obscure places is only entertaining for people with OCD and doesn't automatically make a game more fun. Racing games especially, I buy racing games to race cars, not to develop better navigation skills or hunt down hidden jumps and secret areas.

I'd also implement leader boards that show who's the highest skilled, rather than has the most free time. Reward people using worse equipment for example. Give a person more points on the leaderboards for using a slower car or less armour or a worse gun. I'd certainly get rid of silly multiplayer achievements. Essentially, what fucks me off playing online is people boosting retarded achievements or playing in a way that jumps them up a rank, rather than helps the team win. In a team, objective based FPS game, I'd only give out points for caturing flags and defending and shit, not going off on solo killing sprees that whilst they help your personal rank, do fuck all to help your team win the match. These days, to be sure of getting in a team that stands a chance of winning an objective game, you need to bring your friends with you.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'd like to see an RTS game simple enough to play with four face buttons and a control stick—a d-pad, even—but complex enough that actual strategy would still be involved in playing it. The newest RTS I've played that I actually enjoyed was Red Alert 2; everything I've tried since then has been nothing but micromanagement and needless complexity in the form of clunky, outdated user interfaces that demand the use of precise mouse clicks and a million hotkeys. For me, the ideal game in the genre would be something as versatile as a modern game, with plenty of tactical options open to the player, but without the resource management or base-building hassle. When I played the Halo Wars demo, I was fairly impressed—it stuck to a few of the principles of simplicity I'd like to see in practise (dedicated controller-friendly UI, lack of base layout hassle), but still fell short in a few areas. From what I hear the campaign can be won through endlessly mashing the attack command buttons on the enemy base. So close, and yet so far.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Isn't the Warhammer game, Tides of War or something, supposed to be more like that? Less resource management, more killing shit, like the much older PS games Shadow of the Horned Rat and the other one.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Shin

Also if I was a developer, I'd realise that making a game open world and hiding things in obscure places is only entertaining for people with OCD and doesn't automatically make a game more fun.

You do forget that a LOT of asian gamers, and many western gamers tend to have OCD and find that the most fun factor in RPGs. True enough I personally find it irritating and a cop out to real gameplay, but I have a few friends of mine who thoroughly enjoy the concept of "A GAME IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS YOU GET 100% AND GET EVERYTHING IN THE GAME".

And yes that includes silly things like getting at least 1 of every single weapon, item and armor in the game.

However I myself find RPGs a cop out in general of a real game. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy the intricate plots (even if they fall apart halfway through the game) of many RPGs. However I'd like it if they took that plot, and put it into a game other than an RPG so it'd feel like I was totally immersing myself into a game, instead of a grindfest of a visual novel with some tenuous degree of human interactivity.

Of course that's just my personal aesthetic preference and probably doesn't count for much.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'd kill the hero off halfway through the story.

Wouldn't that knock you fuckers for a loop?

FELIPE NO

Like people have said before, I'd like to see an RTS game where winning isn't memorizing the tech-tree and all of the hot-keys but instead involves troop placement and, you know...strategy! I guess that's why people play Civ IV instead of Starcraft but I'd like to see the story and the pacing of an RTS game like Starcraft with more strategy-minded combat (kind of what the Total War games tried to do with varying degrees of success).

And as much as I love RPGs, the stories do get a bit predictable on occasion and I would like to see more gameplay-story interaction in less arbitrary ways than "Choose to kill/save this character, go down left/right path".

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

I'd kill the hero off halfway through the story.

Wouldn't that knock you fuckers for a loop?

Given the hissy-fits a lot of people had when Metal Gear Solid ditched Snake after an hour, I imagine once word got out your game would come in for a fair bit of negative press. It'd be awesome if they did that in a Zelda or Mario game though, kill off Link halfway through and make you play the rest of the game out as a Metrosexual who spends more time crying to his girlfriend than killing bad guys.

Also, Qwarky, some of the Ghost Recon and Rainbow games have lost you the whole clip when you reload half-way through, like in Mafia. So did Black if memory serves, I don't think it's as uncommon as you think.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm fully aware that it'd be a dick move. Especially for anal-retentive grinders who like to be ludicrously beefed in order to avoid any true challenge.

But it'd also be kind of an epic move since nobody's actually permanently killed off the main hero before the game's conclusion. At least not that I can currently think of.

I'd handle it tastefully. You know, have the protagonist's younger brother - or something like that - step in to fill the shoes, make his motivation revenge and show him becoming increasingly twisted and merciless as the story draws to a close, until finally, right after defeating the end boss, the new hero shows his true colors and steals all the power of the fallen enemy for himself. You'd only have the rest of the party to fight him in one last battle. So if you used all the stat-boost items on the hero, sucker.

I would never claim that it'd sell like hotcakes but it sure would break as many conventions as I could.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

I'm fully aware that it'd be a dick move. Especially for anal-retentive grinders who like to be ludicrously beefed in order to avoid any true challenge.

But it'd also be kind of an epic move since nobody's actually permanently killed off the main hero before the game's conclusion. At least not that I can currently think of.

I'd handle it tastefully. You know, have the protagonist's younger brother - or something like that - step in to fill the shoes, make his motivation revenge and show him becoming increasingly twisted and merciless as the story draws to a close, until finally, right after defeating the end boss, the new hero shows his true colors and steals all the power of the fallen enemy for himself. You'd only have the rest of the party to fight him in one last battle. So if you used all the stat-boost items on the hero, sucker.

I would never claim that it'd sell like hotcakes but it sure would break as many conventions as I could.

That would actually be pretty fucking awesome, if it was handled tastefully and foreshadowed at least a bit (having a character the player is aware of and probably likes taking over as opposed to some unknown) and like you said having some sort of stat bonuses and new skills/different character direction.

I like this idea. I suppose making a game with this in mind is a bit of a cop out though

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I never played Eternal Sonata to know if it's used my mean ideas already. But if someone else has done it already, bravo!

I was speaking idiomatically.

The problem with this is that in order for people to be aware of Eternal Sonatas plot twist they have to actually be able to play through most of the game, and good luck with that shit.

I've been trying for years, can't do it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Shin

Isn't the Warhammer game, Tides of War or something, supposed to be more like that? Less resource management, more killing shit, like the much older PS games Shadow of the Horned Rat and the other one.

That was Warhammer 40kk: Dawn of War, and for the most part it was okay, but some serious balance issued messed it up last time I played it, but it was a step in the right direction.

Ground Control was a decent RTS that had a unique concept: you pick your assets prior to the level and then that is all you get. But still maintaining itself as an RTS.

And Eternal Sonata was pretty damned amazing as far as plot twists go. The plot summary gives it away on wikipedia for those who are interested.

FELIPE NO

Personally I wouldn't mind the main character dying at the end of a game if it's done well enough. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction about protagonist death, and I kinda get it if you only think about spending all that time playing the game, only to be "rewarded" at the end with death anyway. But developers do this all the time with other games. How many escort missions have had you protect some person, guy or a girl, only to have them die in a cutscene just later anyway? I think those kinds of deaths are far bigger dick moves than the protagonist dying. I get more upset about NPC plot deaths then protagonist ones.

But it really depends on how you do it. There's been really stupid protagonist deaths in movies as well, and understandably it's those that games look to when trying to justify never killing off a protagonist. You want a franchise after all, and don't want to anger your players.

But again, that's just me. If your character achieves something, has something worth dying for, even eventually does, that would be just as satisfying as some bs happy ending. MGS4 certainly would have benefitted without the copout.


And Black did not have you lose your entire clip.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Timberwolf8889

Like people have said before, I'd like to see an RTS game where winning isn't memorizing the tech-tree and all of the hot-keys but instead involves troop placement and, you know...strategy! I guess that's why people play Civ IV instead of Starcraft but I'd like to see the story and the pacing of an RTS game like Starcraft with more strategy-minded combat (kind of what the Total War games tried to do with varying degrees of success).

You should try Company of Heroes. It's almost exactly what you describe. Civ 4, on the other hand, is the most tech-tree-centric game you will ever play, so judging by this post you might want to stay away from it

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Qwarky

Personally I wouldn't mind the main character dying at the end of a game if it's done well enough. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction about protagonist death, and I kinda get it if you only think about spending all that time playing the game, only to be "rewarded" at the end with death anyway. But developers do this all the time with other games. How many escort missions have had you protect some person, guy or a girl, only to have them die in a cutscene just later anyway? I think those kinds of deaths are far bigger dick moves than the protagonist dying. I get more upset about NPC plot deaths then protagonist ones.

But it really depends on how you do it. There's been really stupid protagonist deaths in movies as well, and understandably it's those that games look to when trying to justify never killing off a protagonist. You want a franchise after all, and don't want to anger your players.

But again, that's just me. If your character achieves something, has something worth dying for, even eventually does, that would be just as satisfying as some bs happy ending. MGS4 certainly would have benefitted without the copout.


And Black did not have you lose your entire clip.

You could argue that the hero dies at the end of Final Fantasy X and the Last Remnant, although they sort of fade into limbo rather than die and you actually hear Rush talking after he's dead in TLR. Also Halo 3, Master Chief dies, why lie.

My bad, I could have sworn that was one game where you did, must just be Ghost Recon then.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Shin

Also Halo 3, Master Chief dies, why lie.

No he doesn't.

Also, as far as killing off the main character (or one of the main playable characters) part way into the game, how about that there Call of Duty 4. You play the entire game as one of two characters and one of them is offed about half/two-thirds of the way through.

I think it's a tack, certainly in an RPG, that could be attempted elsewhere provide it was done well. I think the issue would be with how you sensibly set up the second playable character and get the player invest in them without having to slow the game down to a crawl, which is why CoD4's dual character set up worked well.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I originally thought Soap also dies at the end of CoD4, which made the ending even more poignant and powerful than it already was after such an amazing finale.

Spoiler:

Resurrecting practically the entire cast for a sequel and killing them off again cheapened the whole thing so much.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I think you guys are also all forgetting that

Spoiler:

Aeris dies

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

I think you guys are also all forgetting that

Spoiler:

Aeris dies

Not if disappointed fans and their fanfiction have anything to say about it.

It's a good point about COD4, it was kind of shocking, but because I didn't really get a great sense of character development in Call of Duty other than "you are a soldier, and your name is this...now go do this stuff. KILL THAT GUY!" the death of the main character just means that eventually I'll be stepping into some new drone's shoes to go shoot terrorists, it doesn't fundamentally change the way I play or perceive the game.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I would design a better Naruto. The last PS3 naruto, you couldnt pick the cool ninjas. And I couldnt walk around outside the hidden leaf village. Like the enterance and exits are hidden even to us High Ranking Genins.

FELIPE NO