Most overused(annoying) things in video games

How dare you insulting the awesome Flowey!

 

MegaKangaskhan is another overused annoying thing. That's why Smogon banned her but no such luck on VGC.

 

Most overused thing? Open world sandbox theme parks. This is pretty interesting though. 8 hours to walk across Just Cause 3. Of course there is hardly shit to do but it is big. 1 hour for Fallout 4.

http://kotaku.com/it-takes-over-eight-hours-to-walk-across-just-cause-3-1748409883

 

Well there is also hardly shit to do in FO4 unless you like mindless grinding.

 

There is a lot of shit to do.

Collect Power Armor, magazines, weapons, junk...

Build shallow settlements with incredibly limited pieces for the lulz...

Kill the same things over and over again in the same locations...

One of the most overused things in gaming has to be collectibles in the large open world games like GTA, Assassins Creed, Farcry, and countless other titles. I hate collectibles being there just for the sake of completing 100%. I need a reason to collect things on most games, especially large games with too much mindless content.

 

Fallout 4 the Hobo simulator.

 

So much this.

Collectibles, and missions that are there just for achievements.

Two examples of GTA-like stuff come to mind right now: Watchdogs, where doing missions gets you weapons that you already have, and my personal favourite, Shadow of Mordor where all the 'legends' quests do absolutely nothing to your weapons. It's literally just towards the completion percentage.

I just can't, can't, can't wrap my head around the idea that a gamer can be happy after 80 hours doing the same shit, just because some number says 100% instead of 78%.

 

You guys know what small detail about games really grinds my gears?

Stealth.

Actually, not stealth gameplay, or games that have stealth missions or what ever. No no no ... not ANY of that. Here, I will show you what I really find irritating:



The Stealth animation. This Stealth crouch. Sneaking. Call it what ever you want. I can't help it, but always feel like the character needs to get to the restroom very fast instead of ... yeah! This is super sneaky/stealthy!

I can't be the only one who finds this more ridiculous than anything else.

 

I prefer the Stealth animation from Sheep Raider.

 

Honestly? None of the features themselves. How they are described, yes.

"Levolution" for Battlefield 4's scripted glorified building collapse events.
"Radiant AI and Quests" for Skyrim's contextual randomly generation of NPC actions and miscellaneous quests.
"Advanced Fish AI" for Call of Duty: Ghosts speaks for itself.

Co-op in Assassin's Creed. Certain equipment, like the new grappling hook in AC: Syndicate, or Mass Effect 3's multiplayer. Romances in Fallout 4. These aren't advertising points, because they're not the core of the game. They should just be left there to find rather than milked to the highest degree. First-person in GTA V, destructible walls in Rainbow Six: Siege. Bioshock Infinite's Skyhook. These are not bad gameplay mechanics, but it's unnecessary to shine a bright spotlight on them as if the game would become an absolute crapfest without them. Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel's oxygen slam and mask system. Black Ops III letting you play a female character. Unnecessary spotlights, just put them in and let the player discover them.

Dying Light, The Witcher 3, and Mad Max advertised nothing but solid gameplay. While all of them have flaws, they sold themselves on the core of their respective game, and not new features.

This is the problem. Advertising new features, even when they should be, by industry standards, already in a sequel. Just sell the game based on what people loved about the last game, but better. Is it that hard?

 

Something I came up a few times recently in 4X space games is the fact of you have to build and upgrade every single part of your spaceships by yourself. I love space strategy games, but really, to me, having to spend 15 minutes each time I unlock some new techs, just opening some upgrade screens, checking stats, verifying which parts have a good balance and which doesn't, it just sucks me out of the game, completely breaks the immersion factor for me. I don't want to spend most of the time I was supposed to conquer the galaxy in the hangar messing with ship parts. If I want to build a ship I'll play Kerbal.

 

Naming new games with simplistic, confusing titles to invoke feeling of a new start. Examples are Tomb Raider (2013) and Hitman (2016), at the moment. There are definitely a lot more but I can't remember them. It's like if Bethesda named their next Fallout, FALLOUT™, and said it wasn't confusing because the original one wasn't all capitalised.

It's a small hassle in searching and a bad way of using your brand to gain more hype and sales. A sequel or a remake should sell well on its own, not by piggybacking the original series' name.

 

Undertale did it right, though. Toriel's death my first time through really caught me off guard.

 

The developers could subvert this trope easily and it would probably make their game stand out more to those that play it. I think about the TV show Dexter where he basically goes stalking in a dark grey but normal looking shirt (no mask, no hood), so if he is caught before he does anything he can just act like a regular guy out for a walk. Also there is that part in the movie Munich where the drunk Americans that get into a scuffle with the protagonists are actually CIA just trying to screw up the timing of their operation.

The 100% is a thing that I struggle with especially since I started using Steam, and I would suppose it has to do with how much OCD is in a person's genetic / psychological make-up. Yet I still fondly look back to the old days when people found crazy things in video games not to get a 100%, but just to experiment and see if they could or to show off to their friends. Think of the World -1 in Super Mario Bros. or doing a completely pacifist run through of Fallout or Deus Ex. There wasn't some stupid achievement motivating those players.

When a sewer level is in a game, the next level should be a Fighting off Infection level.

The problem is that there is a whole spectrum of what players want. Some want to avoid slogging gameplay (especially for getting rid of inventory). Some want realism in gaming. Yeah, it would be cool if there was a supply-demand thing going on behind the scenes. I have heard that some games have tried to put that in games, but they usually back off to make things more fun. It would also be funny if a player sold 40 crappy guns to a merchant and then the merchant turns around and sells them to the large angry gang that is next in line. It would also be great if stores refused to do business with the player or were shut down because of the whole "selling stolen goods" laws.

Monster behavior is usually depicted only for cinematic effect. I agree with the intimidation factor that zeg brought up, but that only makes sense for equals - Godzilla vs. Mothra not T. Rex vs. human with road flare. For clearly outmatched humans against a monster, it would more likely resemble what you would see when a dog is chasing a lizard or a squirrel - there is no growling or barking, the dog just runs, pounces, and digs trying to get at their meal as fast as possible (generally having a good time), unless their quarry gets away or hides - then they might bark a bit.

The line in Jurassic World, "Monster is a relative term. To a canary, a cat is a monster. We're just used to being the cat." is spot on. Too bad they made a lot of the rest of the movie full of humans being stupid and dinosaurs acting like cinematic monsters and not like hungry (until they are full) animals. It's like some movie-makers have never seen an African wildlife documentary showing lions just resting during the day while all kinds of prey walk nearby (lions do 90% of their hunting at night so as to not overheat). Also as if the new GMO dinosaur is so awesome that it can kill any dinosaur on the island without getting seriously injured. There is a reason that even the apex predators usually go for the sick, the old, and the young in a herd. The GMO dino should have had a couple of broken bones from going up against herds of triceratops or diplodocus during its rampage.

 

That one!
Those moments, when youre ending entire dungeon, and out of nowhere, some guy appears and abducts you. : |
Hate such linear elements.

 

Even worse when the character you're playing is supposed to be skilled and experienced, yet instantly becomes slow and incompetent during cutscenes when the plot needs to delay itself even more, change locations quickly, or for some other contrived reason. Call of Duty and Far Cry games where you walk through the door and get melee'd by some random grunt are the worst offenders. So is the new Tomb Raider, actually.

Half-Life never suffers from this, and when it does use this technique, it makes sense. Half-Life 2 had a bunch of Metrocops swarming you because you were unarmed and Gordon Freeman was never established to be a strong fighter outside of his HEV suit, and then you get rescued by Alyx. That's a good way to introduce a character while not having your player character lose for no reason.

 

You forgot to mention Mass Effect 3 *cough*Kai Leng*cough*. Shepard taking on gunships in Mass Effect 2? No problem! Taking on a gunship in Mass Effect 3? Nope Shepard is now incompetent for the sake of the plot and both squad members get knocked over by some lowly wanker.

 

Most annoying thing in videogames? I think it's pixels.

 

^ That video is so original.