190
What game mechanics do you love and hate?
(beehaw.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
190 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30500 readers
206 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate when games are open world just cause. I only ever enjoy an open world when there's an insane amount of lore like in Skyrim or Fallout, but in most games I prefer a linear gameplay or semi-open (Mass effect, Dragon Age)
At some point something happened and literally every game has to be open world now 😭
A Plague Tale is an incredible example of what can be done with a linear design. Both Innocence and Requiem were amazing.
Open world games like the Witcher 3 leave the player with this really weird interaction with plot urgency. I'm looking for someone but just barely missed them? Hurry to the next town so I don't miss them again? But then zero consequences when I ignore that quest for twenty levels.
While I don't mind openworld games, they definitely feel off, esp. with regards to the main quest. Can't save the world, gotta get this granny laid.
One of the only games with a open world that actually REQUIRED it for the game to make sense is Paradise Killers. It's a detective open world game on an island. The open world makes a lot of sense, because a detective has to find their clues. It's not a detective game if there's a counter of "clues found" or there's a linear progression. The game never tells you that you're done finding clues. Like a real detective in a real open world, you have to decide whether you've seen enough.
Agreed. Like the original linear Mirror's Edge is way better than it's open world prequel. It's my go-to example for exactly this problem.
And that Halo game I can't remember what it's called, but there's an open world Halo game and it's awful.
The biggest problem in that game, and in general, is the fact that, yeah it's an open world game, but there isn't really a lot to do, so you have to run around through the level, which is usually boring, to get to the actual next bit of the game.
It wouldn't be so bad if they just teleported you to the next bit. Then the open world aspect could be played around with on your terms, but you could also just ignore it if you wanted. But they never do that because they've made an open world, and they want you to look at it.
Ubisoft is the worst offender!
I mostly dislike open-world games because of the lazy travel systems. Either you have to run everywhere or you free fast-travel from any point, too any point.
There is no middelground.
I miss games like Morrowind, where you not only had to pay for fast-travel, but it functioned more like an actual transportation system. Like, you had to go to this city and take a Strider to that town and then a boat ride to get to your destination.
Giving the world some infrastructur and natural money drainers helps with immersion and facilitates the need to go do some side-quests every now then. You get fast-travel, but you also get to see the world that was build for you. And you don't run around as the richest douche in the world by level 10 with the best gear available because nothing costs anything.
Bethesda skipped this aspect entirely back in Oblivion and never looked back. Making your characters golden gods from the get-go, with no reason to interact with anyone or do anything except screwing around and collecting trinkets.
There's more to it, ofcause, but this is the biggest pet-peeve I have.