30 replies to this topic

[CyberGamer1539]

For games on Steam and such, I understand not having a sound test when they want to sell the actual soundtrack (I have quite a few soundtrack "DLCs" as a result). But, that's not quite on topic...

 

As for what I'd change in games, I want to mention something more specifically for game series that have been cranking out games nearly every year: 

Stop. I get it, it rakes in money like crazy, but when it looks and feels like the same game over and over again, even the people who continue to buy it are starting to feel a bit let down by the fact that nothing really new is happening. You can keep releasing these games, but change something up in the formula. Pull something out that no one would ever expect and catch your target audience completely off guard with something cool and new.

Since Pokemon was mentioned, even it falls victim to this. Yeah, sure, we have a new type and new megas now, but look at the game itself. The plot has become predictable and the games too easy to really make it a huge entertainment factor unless you deliberately keep yourself underleveled. But, I'm not just talking about Pokemon, obviously. Many other franchises have begun to do this (not just talking about Nintendo either) and clearly people are starting to get annoyed.

 

I get it, it gives you a ton of money, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be creative with a franchise that's already guaranteed to give you a good amount of profit just by slapping its name on the box. 

Another example of this would be Call of Duty. My friend always freaks out about how he's going to get the new CoD game, and I just laugh and say "They're all exactly the same."

 

Speaking of Call of Duty, I am glad that they finally decided to remove the campaign in Black Ops III. I have never played the campaign (nor do I even own a CoD game at the moment) but everyone (except that friend from earlier) says that the campaign is always bland and boring.

 

 

Now to another shooter. Halo! I have 2 gripes about this series, one of them targeted directly at Halo 5: Guardians, but we'll get to that later. First of all, add some CPU players to the multiplayer! If you don't have Xbox Live Gold, then you can play with only a maximum of 4 players, while with Xbox Live you can play with much more! I don't have Gold right now, so I can't really do much with that game's multiplayer. While playing with 4 people is fun, its just not a match for the chaos that occurs when you play online with 8 or more players!  When you're playing with a few friends (or even alone) we need some computer-controlled players. I love playing Call of Duty multiplayer because it has NPC characters fighting against you! Halo needs to step up its game and add some NPCs!

 

On to my Halo 5 gripe. So my friend that has an Xbox One got Halo 5, and so I went over to his house to just hang out and check the game out. I grabbed a controller and sat down for some fun FPS action. Then he turns to me, holding the box, and says "Oh yeah, it has no local co-op, sorry."..........WHAT?!?!?!?!

 

WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU REMOVE LOCAL CO-OP??? IF YOU DON'T HAVE XBOX LIVE GOLD, THEN THAT BASICALLY MEANS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME COMPLETELY ALONE!!!

 

If you are confused by what I mean, then basically if you want to play the game "with" someone, then you have to take turns. Yeah. Unless of course, you have an Xbox One, a controller, a copy of the game, Xbox Live Gold, and an Xbox headset. Then you can play online. Which is nowhere near as fun as playing in the same room as someone.

Edited by CyberGamer1539, 09 January 2016 - 11:50 AM.

[Golden Guardian]

WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU REMOVE LOCAL CO-OP??? IF YOU DON'T HAVE XBOX LIVE GOLD, THEN THAT BASICALLY MEANS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME COMPLETELY ALONE!!!

 

I feel like games always go on two extremes and never really find a good point for co-op. Honestly, how hard is it to have the co-op be both local AND online? Now games and companies seem to be getting better at doing it, but while I was thinking of examples of games that did it right, I could only come up with older indie games prior to games like Zelda: Triforce Heroes or other games that have actually decided it's a good plan to implement both. 

 

(If you're wondering what examples I have, I'm mostly thinking of games like Risk of Rain and Battleblock Theater. They are not very new games, but they understood the idea of having good co-op both local and online.)

[CyberGamer1539]

I do like Battleblock Theater...

 

Buck your pants, buckle your pants! Buck- buck- buck- buck- buckle your pants!

[Bill Nye the Russian Spy]

Another example of this would be Call of Duty. My friend always freaks out about how he's going to get the new CoD game, and I just laugh and say "They're all exactly the same."
 
Speaking of Call of Duty, I am glad that they finally decided to remove the campaign in Black Ops III. I have never played the campaign (nor do I even own a CoD game at the moment) but everyone (except that friend from earlier) says that the campaign is always bland and boring.
 
 
Now to another shooter. Halo! I have 2 gripes about this series, one of them targeted directly at Halo 5: Guardians, but we'll get to that later. First of all, add some CPU players to the multiplayer! If you don't have Xbox Live Gold, then you can play with only a maximum of 4 players, while with Xbox Live you can play with much more! I don't have Gold right now, so I can't really do much with that game's multiplayer. While playing with 4 people is fun, its just not a match for the chaos that occurs when you play online with 8 or more players!  When you're playing with a few friends (or even alone) we need some computer-controlled players. I love playing Call of Duty multiplayer because it has NPC characters fighting against you! Halo needs to step up its game and add some NPCs!
 
On to my Halo 5 gripe. So my friend that has an Xbox One got Halo 5, and so I went over to his house to just hang out and check the game out. I grabbed a controller and sat down for some fun FPS action. Then he turns to me, holding the box, and says "Oh yeah, it has no local co-op, sorry."..........WHAT?!?!?!?!
 
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU REMOVE LOCAL CO-OP??? IF YOU DON'T HAVE XBOX LIVE GOLD, THEN THAT BASICALLY MEANS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THE GAME COMPLETELY ALONE!!!
 
If you are confused by what I mean, then basically if you want to play the game "with" someone, then you have to take turns. Yeah. Unless of course, you have an Xbox One, a controller, a copy of the game, Xbox Live Gold, and an Xbox headset. Then you can play online. Which is nowhere near as fun as playing in the same room as someone.

I know this sounds cynical, but this looks like another deliberate attempt to pressure people into buying Gold. Just putting that out there.

And I agree with the idea to change Gyms to have strategy themes rather than type ones. The Petalburg Gym sort of had the right idea, but still suffered from the mono-type issue. Another thing that might help with this (and the rest of the game, for that matter) would be to completely remove free switching after a KO - that always struck me as cheap, personally.

[Koh]

You can actually disable that by going to the options menu.  Change it from Switch to Set.  It's one of the only things you can do to make the game somewhat challenging.  Whenever I play Pokermanz, these are the rules I follow

 

-Switch to Set

-No items in battle.  Free to use outside of battle to prepare for the next one, but it always felt cheap how we can have 99 (999 from Gen 4 onwards) of every item, but the other trainers either have none, or a very small amount.

-No Legendaries.  Needless to say, they're OP, as if Super Effective wasn't OP enough as it is.

Edited by Koh, 09 January 2016 - 01:43 PM.

[Bill Nye the Russian Spy]

Yeah, I know you can switch it, but I never bother because I don't really consider the "main game" to be the focus. I get that it's not actually supposed to be challenging outside Battle Facilities and PvP, but I think that changing that (by switching the focus of Gyms and removing Switch mode) would leave people a lot more ready for the post-game. Or maybe it would just drive away casual players, IDK.

Edited by Bill Nye the Russian Spy, 09 January 2016 - 01:53 PM.

[Fiyaball]

Well, with the change I proposed, Surf would still be a move, but it'd be a TM instead, and its overworld functionality will be replaced with a corresponding item the player can use.  

Funny that you mention that. There's actually an unused item that lets you surf without having surf in the files of the original pokemon games.

[Cukeman]

I agree that HMs wasting move slots on your party can be really frustrating, sadly I think the developers view this as "strategy", as in "which slots should I give up".
 
Yeah Pokemon could be more challenging and strategic. I know it's a thing that appeals to all ages, but it's also something the developers want to be accessible to a younger audience...
 
I also agree that Pokemon tells the same story every time. That should change. Pokemon Colosseum made a nice effort in that direction.
 
As for other games, I would give every 3-D game that needs a map one as beautifully designed and functional as the one in Metroid Prime. I know Mega Man ZX is 2-D, but it has one of the all-time worst maps in video games. For that matter, there are many games which don't do "open-world" well, and travelling back to the hub becomes extremely boring. In those cases I'd really like to just be dropped into the level where all the fun and action is and not have to waste time outside of level walking around. Zelda is one example of a series where the walking around is usually something I enjoy.

Edited by Cukeman, 10 January 2016 - 04:06 PM.

[Koh]

Being a heavy Puyo Puyo player, I have to say...being able to move, or rotate, over the high columns at the top of the screen without having to build a high column with one Puyo less next to it.  It always gets in my way when I'm building a huge chain.

 

Donkey Kong 94.  I'dve delayed it for the Gameboy Color, and put the mega color on it, instead of waiting on the Super Game Boy.  It's okay in black and white, but it'd be much better in color, with all the environments Mario visits in it, I'dve liked to see them fully realized in color properly.  It also needs a nice HD remake.........

 

Zelda 2.  Link's sword range sucks, and is like a butter knife.  Make it longer.

 

Every other Zelda Game:  Debuff the potions and fairies.  The games are always way too easy as it is, why have such overpowered handicaps?

[Bill Nye the Russian Spy]

Another one for Tri Force Heroes: Remove the "No challenge" option from challenge selection in "With challenge" lobbies. Players who want to play without a challenge should go to "No challenge" lobbies.

 

Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon: Prevent Pluck, Bug Bite, and Incinerate from targeting items in your inventory when hitting mons other than the leader. Alter Pancham, Watchog, and/or the game's apparent target audience such that the game isn't teaching kids all the wrong lessons about bullying. Unlock the rock remix of the boss music in the Jukebox the first time it's heard, rather than the second. Make bosses and minibosses immune to OHKO moves. Prevent mons with abilities that can actively harm a team (such as Sand Stream) from being entered as Helpers on Pelipper Island.

[nicklegends]

I've been playing Xenoblade Chronicles X lately, and it's really tough for me to enjoy at times because the game is full of so many totally extreme conflicts.

* It has a complex battle system that allows for sophisticated strategies where you can select your team and its abilities to exploit your enemies' weak points... BUT there's so much going on at any time with buffs and debuffs and aggro and TP and morale and soul voices and weapons and weather effects and character positioning and appendages and numbers flying everywhere that a system with huge potential mushes together in a disappointing heap of unnecessary complexity. I feel like, even if you knew what you were looking for in a battle, you couldn't find it.

* The game sets you up for exciting story battles but by lack of testing occasionally spawns a high-level tyrant right in the middle of your battle and the tyrant promptly one-hits your entire party.

* The game has the courtesy to color enemies based on difficulty and indicates that blue enemies should be very easy (according to the game's manual), but in fighting them you'll find you can't hit them and they'll take you out in one or two shots.

* The game cheapens an absolutely gigantic world by substantially abstracting collectibles from the world around them.

* The game has strong voice acting but terrible dialogue.

* The game has great models but terrible pop-up in places.

* The game tries to bring a world to life but lets you freely clip through monsters in the overworld and cars in New LA.

I just don't understand how a game that succeeds on so many fronts can fail so spectacularly in so many others. It's frustrating.

To change this, at least look more closely at collision detection. Your attacks should have to hit to do damage to your enemy; an enemy's attack should have to hit to do damage to you. You should be stopped when you collide with an overworld enemy.

In the end, I still like the game because it does enough right; in fact, I'm 80 hours in and have no plans on stopping. I just cringe internally when unforced issues like these expose themselves. They're indelible marks on an otherwise polished product.

[Moosh]

* The game tries to bring a world to life but lets you freely clip through monsters in the overworld and cars in New LA.

I agree with most of your points, but this one I don't fully agree with. The cars in NLA don't make much sense, but I feel pretty strongly that the monsters should not be solid. The same goes for all attacks having to physically connect to deal damage. Battles in this game are so positioning based that I feel adding collision would just needlessly complicate things and create unfair situations. I'd run into cases where a monster's leg pins me up against a wall and I become unable to contribute to the battle and die for example. Back attacks would become much harder to pull off because you'd often have to run the whole distance around the enemy to get to the back. And then for melee attacks actually having to connect, the arts are already positioning and distance based and it has the appendage system on top of that. I think you may be asking a bit too much of both the programmers and the player in that case. They could maybe do to make the required distances a little shorter, though.

 

And now I'll pile on some things I'd change:

• Soundtrack: Man, when Sawano's soundtrack is used right, it's 10/10. When it's used wrong, though, it's the worst thing ever. I love the world themes, I love the battle themes, but the music in cutscenes with vocals drowning out character dialogue and the infamous NLA theme. No! Bad X! I believe Xenoblade's soundtrack was done by several different people/groups, and I wish they'd have done something like that here too. They needed a different artist to fill in the gaps where Sawano's style clearly wasn't the right one. Then there's the execution of the music. I haven't noticed this as much, but I've heard people say there's some pretty bad issues with music starting over needlessly and songs with buildup being used in the wrong places. One example that comes to mind is the Overdrive. One of my favorite songs in the game and I only get to hear a few seconds of the beginning of it unless I can figure out how to use the overly complicated and poorly explained Overdrive mechanic. From what I've seen in videos, flying with skells has a similar problem where you usually won't be flying for long enough to hear the high point of the song and so much as brushing against the ground resets it completely.
• Story: X's story is what it is I suppose. There's no way they could pull off the same intensity of Xenoblade when the whole world is open to the player from the very start. The least I could ask is that they at least try to engage the player from the very start. Xenoblade's opening put you right in the middle of a battle, twice. Then after that there was some questing around closing the introduction with a nice classic hometown destruction. X starts with a cutscene of a huge incomprehensible (but cool) space battle and then...a bunch of walking and talking. Way to really sell the gameplay there, X. I forget if the first battle of the game was even given a cutscene to open it. It probably was, but it was nowhere as near as memorable as Xenoblade's. None of the cutscenes were. X's cutscenes are so dead compared to Xenoblade's. I wish they'd try to actually sell the gameplay instead of just being there to tie sections of gameplay together. You walk to where the next major monster is. "We're going to fight the monster." You fight the monster. Wow! It takes five chapters in before something even slightly interesting happens.
• Affinity Missions: This is one feature that I feel was a huge improvement over Xenoblade. Xenoblade had these things called Heart to Hearts where you'd go to a spot on the map and two characters would talk and you'd get to know a bit about them. They gave some nice extra character development, but I found them just a little dull. Now X upgraded them to fully voice acted sidequests with actual gameplay. What could possibly go wrong with such a major improvement? Once you take on an affinity mission you cannot cancel it or choose another affinity or story mission until you complete it. Some of these require time consuming grinding and you can apparently get screwed out of many hours if you make the wrong decisions. Oh.
• Field Skills: The game at some point gives you the option to upgrade a Mechanical/Archaeology/Biology skill. These let you interact with various treasure box type objects all around the world. Thing is, while the game implies that you have a choice which to level and you indeed do, the Mechanical skill is by far the most important and if you fail to realize this, you can put yourself in a bad situation. You need the Mechanical skill to place certain probes and you need those probes to find certain materials. Remember that grinding in certain Affinity Missions I mentioned? Yeah. I think they should've just removed the skill requirement from the probes. Finding them is hard enough.
• Party Organization: In order to add new members to your party, instead of opening a menu and adding them, you need to find them in NLA and talk to them every time. What? Also you have four slots for a "reserve party" in the party menu, but these are only used when adding people to the party, usually one at a time. What? There's 18 playable characters. What!?

[Norzan]

This technically was already done with two games, but i would start to make more Zelda games without Zelda, Triforce, Ganon, Master Sword and all the stuff that it's pretty much in 90% of the games in the franchise. Yes, i know that series is called Legend of Zelda, but she doesn't need to be in nearly every game in the series and be the main focus. At this point Legend of Zelda is pretty much the name of the series and not the actual legend of zelda.

 

This is the main reason why enjoyed Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening; they told a story without all the conventions and pretty much tropes of the series. I wish more games in the series were made like these.

[Koh]

Has Zelda ever been the focus anyway?  The only times I can think of are Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure.  Every other time, she's just a damsel in distress, and absent for 90% of the game.

[Norzan]

Focus as in she's the main goal, your main goal. At least seven games in the main series have her as the main goal. I'm honestly tired of it.