I also hate when a game insta fails the mission because you killed a friendly.

Go ahead and make my entire team turn on me, slaughtering me underneath a rain of gunfire and grenades but don't just leave me hanging with an obligatory "MISSION FAILED" screen while my teammates apathetical soldier on.

BallPtPenTheif

The last time a strategy game did this sort of shit to me was Heroes of Might and Magic V. You other Heroes players know EXACTLY which mission I'm talking about.

TheDarwinian

I just don't bother finishing those game. I put it aside and say..."damn...they got my money...those F******* bastards!"

Vecha

I for one, support 'Huge Breasts and Other Juvenilia' as long as it isn't in place of gameplay.

Crowbot

At first glance, I thought the Headline said, "'Twinkie Denying' Game Design Deliciousness" W

Which just proves that I'm really hungry.

And this article is to blame!

You Are My Friend!

Everyone must remember that the Twinkie Factory survived the Y2k.

-Scrixx-

Apu: "Silly man! There is no way you can destroy a Twinkie!"

...Yeah, I know it's out of context, but it's all I can think of

arniejolt

Just thought I'd add. I hate Twinkies. They are disgusting.

Vecha

@-Scrixx-:

I don't think there were any casualties with the Y2K....besides those that bought too much shit in preparation for it...

Vecha

@Crowbot:

Huge Breasts for gameplay? That sounds interesting....

Vecha

I love these, been following them for years. The first column was written in '98 and, alarmingly, the same mistakes are still being made 10 years on.

They are excellent because they're not just bitching about something annoying, they always provide a solution to the problem.

Zadaz

I don't agree with the statement that article makes in the section on "Fake Interactivity". Interactivity is really just how interactive something is, whereas he makes it out to mean that everything you do has to have some kind of outcome that you control. The very reason that the end sequence of Shadow of the Colossus *vague spoilers upcoming, perhaps?*

was interactive was to give the player an initial sense of hope, only to soon realize as you were sucked into the vortex/pool that it was an affair you could not overcome. The emotional response just wouldn't have been the same if it was a simple cutscene where you could tell right away that you couldn't fully succeed.

And the end result of the quick-time events in RE4 /did/ have a purpose. They let you live and continue the game. And some of 'em required you to be pretty damn fast, so I'd say some of them were definitely a challenge with a decent reward (I mean, life is rather precious. =P).

I also disagree with the example in "Bad Gamepad-to-Mouse/Keyboard Conversions", the example being Assassin's Creed. I found the PC version controls to be very well implemented. I never had a single issue with them (just the fact that my PC can't run the game very well. =3), and I fail to see what problems the writer of the article had.

Also, when it comes to impossible boss battles, as mentioned in "Setting the Player Up to Fail", generally, the indication that you can't win the the fact that A) the characters say they're horribly screwed or need to come up with another plan (Skies of Arcadia, the Red Gigas), B) you're getting yourself beaten mercilessly when someone else jumps in to save you (Tales of the Abyss, Liger boss battle), or C) someone else interferes and puts a stop to it for the time being (Skies of Arcadia, one of the Ramirez fights). I can't recall any unbeatable boss battle that I wasn't essentially told about in-game, so an example would have done that article some good.

Ravenhood

I like that site, and emailed him a few peeves.

Shin-san

@BallPtPenTheif:

What's worse is when it fails you because a friendly that was across the map died.

Unknown-User

Though I agree with most of the article, the bit about Shadow of the Collossus just doesn't ring for me. I know it's weird that they let you try to escape your fate at the end. But it's fairly obvious it cannot be done, as they have given you enough warning during the game: after you beat every one and each of the colossi, a dark energy comes out of their remains. And you can try to escape from it. Ultimately, this dark energy gets you every time, but you can still try.

salsaman1991

Seeing that list just reminded me of Call of Duty 3.

Disappearing German weapons (always leaving you with the bolt action rifle)CHECK

Unskipable movies (to cover loading of a level)CHECK

Bad guys come back after you "rest" (I just point to the never ending parade of bad guys during the game)CHECK

rabidkeebler

@salsaman1991: Yeah, that was the main part of the article I didn't think much of. There haven't been any games in a long time that have "tricked" me in to thinking I need to replay a sequence like this thinking I can change the outcome for some reason. Even in the case of RPG battles that you can't win (or the story says you lose regardless of the outcome), the designers usually make it pretty quick beating, and I think there have actually been a few that rewarded you somehow for winning when you weren't supposed to, heh.

Poojipoo

@Vecha: You should try them deep-fried. The outer shell gets crunchy and the insides get gooey.

Shin-san

Hmm... there's actually quite a few of his points that I don't agree on...

- Games Without Maps (you can figure out where you're supposed to go on your own, you don't /need/ a map to get you places. With games like Doom or Quake it's a little more understandable, but to not play the game because it doesn't have a map? That's just stupid...)
- You Have 30 Seconds to Figure Out This Level Before You Die (this is being done fairly well in Portal, so I fail to see an issue here; it's a matter of how fast you can be, and generally, it's a very easy solution. This also gives the player a sense of urgency that would otherwise be unattainable if there was no time limit.)
- Poor Acting (I'm just confused as to why he put this in a design article... this is more a directing thing, isn't it? =S And besides, sometimes cheesy or poor acting makes a game entertaining/funny, though perhaps unintentionally at times, like the House of the Dead series.)
- Overuse of Darkness (would Penumbra: Overture be as frightening if it were even the slightest bit brighter? Sometimes darkness is a good thing.)
- Bad Translation and Localization (again, not really the designer's fault, I don't think)
- No Subtitles (I can understand this if one is deaf or is playing a game in another language, but they shouldn't be a requirement all the time, especially if the game you're playing has voices in your native language. I never had any issues with hearing in Myst, either, so, maybe that's just him.)

Overall, though, definitely an interesting read.

Ravenhood

@Vecha: He's talking about The Simpsons.

TeknoVagrant

@arniejolt: It's "Silly Customer! You cannot hurt the Twinkie!"

ludwigk

@Ravenhood: Quick Time events in general are all terrible. We've all played that game before, its called "Simon". Colors flash on the "screen" and you press the buttons.

His point is that with QT events it is not even clear whether the game is interactive or not because you're not actually playing the game with any of the game's usual mechanics. You don't dodge, position, aim, select weapon, fire, heal, recover, you just press "X" to move the plot along. Some cut scenes, you will just sit back and watch, and others, you will make a life or death decision.

Failure to complete them often (as you mentioned) results in an abrupt ending. Players who are invested in the game, and have put forth effort to become good at the game will feel cheated because their game was unexpectedly ended for reasons that they may not fully understand. In fact, during cut scenes, you lose control of your character, the cameras, the progression, and the understanding is that the sequence is NON-interactive.

The fact that you like it doesn't make it any better, its still fundamentally terrible design for presenting the player with a set of conventions, then turning around and breaking them in a completely unexpected fashion.

In terms of the un-winnable boss fights, I know that this occurs in some Final Fantasy games, and it is frustrating because you can run through lots of healing potions and unique restorative items against a boss who cannot die, only to be saved/redeemed when a particular other seemingly random event. The point here is that your decisions don't matter, and the convention that the game has been working under for the rest of the game (survive combat, do you best to win them) is thrown on its head for no perceivable reason. If you're going to have a scenario where the user's input truly doesn't matter, just make it a cut scene.

He's not trying to say that noone will enjoy these mechanics, or that they are impossible to circumnavigate, he is saying that the DESIGN is deeply flawed. The design of the game should encourage the player to play it, not frustrate. It should be consistent and train the player to make the correct decisions, not throw the entire scenario on its head and change rules arbitrarily.

ludwigk

No one really takes this guy seriously. Especially when most of these so called "design" issues aren't anywhere in the scope of a game designer's job.

I propose "Bad Game Company Executive, I'm Ramming a Twinkie Up Your Arse." It'd be more accurate and more amusing.

Please, don't give Mr. Adams any more attention.

haruna

I was about to comment on Gamasutra, but then the site demanded a hell of a lot of personal details just to sign up. No, I'm NOT giving you my real name, address, and the name of my workplace (seriously? Not even online stores ask that!) just to place a comment, thankyouverymuch.

So I'll comment here. The "Shadow of the Colossus" thing is a good point, and I know at least one other who got pissed off because of it. Me, I checked GameFAQs to see if I could actually do something about it.

*** SPOILER FOLLOWS! ***
*** SPOILER FOLLOWS! ***
*** SPOILER FOLLOWS! ***

The reason isn't that you're sucked into the portal-thing once the priests escape, but that you can try to smack them down while you're in beast-form. THAT's the part of the game that seems winnable, yet hella hard, because the monster controls like a Resident Evil 1 character (oh snap). Yet, it doesn't control badly enough that you feel that you have no chance.

Once the priests escape, it's like you're watching the Bad Ending. If I didn't have access to GameFAQs or similar, I would head back and try it again. And THAT is bad design.

Another thing that pissed me off was in Grand Theft Auto 4. There are two missions there that are infuriating because it feels like you're not responsible for the death. They're both near the end: The first one has you driving a slow truck for five minutes or more before you're asked to kill a warehouse full of thugs. However, you're doing this along with a guy who needs to be kept alive, and... he's not very good at it. In fact, he tends to rush ahead of you a bit too much, step in front of you as you're about to shoot, and generally seems to have a death wish. This is particularly infuriating when it's one of a few missions where you CAN'T just take a taxi to the mission site: No, every time you fail, you have to waste ten minutes first getting to the truck (thankfully you CAN take a taxi to the truck), and then driving the truck.

The second infuriating part is the very last mission. After a long shootout and chase, you end up in a helicopter. You're asked to stay low and close to a boat you're following, and also shoot at it. Now, shooting at the boat is retardedly hard, and at one point they start sending rockets at you. Eventually, you WILL get hit. And here's where the designers screwed up: The game doesn't go directly into a cut scene, instead letting you retain control of the chopper. Now, if you've been shooting at the boat, then your chopper will be facing forward, and likely be quite close to the water. The result? Chopper touches water, you fail the mission, and have to do the entire shootout and chase all over again.

Eventually, of course, you'll discover that shooting at the boat doesn't do crap. It's another one of those scripted missions where trying to take down the ones you're chasing will just make things harder for you, and that missile that keeps hitting your freaking chopper is going to hit your chopper no matter what. But if you're like me, you'll discover this after a LOT of cursing and wasted time. Epicness shouldn't get in the way of gameplay, Rockstar!

Oh well. It could've been the flight school from San Andreas.

*** SPOILERS END ***
*** SPOILERS END ***
*** SPOILERS END ***

MrPerson

@Ravenhood: regarding the maps - the thing is, I really haven't seen a modern game that allows for the potential to get lost AND doesn't have a map. It's either one or the other, and rarely the other for that matter.

But beyond that, the real issue here is that games like doom, quake or halo are so full of repetitive environments, the map basically acts as a consolation prize. A 'sorry we were lazy/didn't have the disk space!' gift to the player. But if the designer can't even be bothered to do THAT, then yes, they are bad game designers.

And even though the presence of landmark-navigable environments are growing, with them are environment sizes well beyond what any normal player can handle memorizing. (so what if GTA4 is full of unique buildings and objects that you can easily remember, it's the size of fucking manhattan) So maps will never, ever cease to be a necessity in large, open world games.

1Grand_Marquis

@Ravenhood: Dude, overuse of darkness is a bad design choice. Did he in particular harp on Penumbra? I didn't play that game, or read the article, but certain games are just so damned dark it doesn't even make sense. Take Doom III for example in single player mode. It's just too dark, which doesn't make sense since its the future, and we seem to have mastered the concept of adequate lighting some 60+ years ago.

Of course darkness can be used effectively, but in some games, you just end up clumsily groping around a dark room for the "salvation-switch" while a hell demon, who is basically invisible to you, is gnawing on your leg. Lame.

You are thinking of games with elements similar to what he's describing but its not the same thing. He's saying some games are too dark, and that's bad design, then you say "I disagree, such and such game was dark, and it was great!". Well that game probably wasn't *too* dark. Sometimes darkness is a good thing, but too much darkness just inhibits game play. You'll know when you see it. Or more aptly, don't see it.

In a game like Portal, you can have a "30 seconds to death" scenario because the framework of the game is always with understanding that there is danger and urgency to every decision, and the objectives are always extremely clear. Portal cannot be subject to this design flaw because you always know what you are trying to do, you just don't always quite know how to do it.

In other games, you will play 99% of the time where the combat is essentially turn based, and you can literally stop in the middle of a dungeon, or while facing a pack of imps, parked in front of your magic screen picking which fire spell to cast and go eat lunch, or go camping for the weekend, then come back and finish your fight. Then, out of the blue, a timer will appear, with an unclear objective, which, failing, will revert you to your previous save point. After much experimentation, frustration, death, and finally looking it up online, you find out that you have to walk in an arbitrary pattern (left, up, right, down, right, right, up, eg) onto a secret switch on the floor, consume a particular item, then defeat the boss in the remaining time to survive.

You are not as much disagreeing w/ the article as much as you are trying to find examples of gameplay elements that are similar to the ones mentioned, but implemented well. I mean, he lists "low poly content" as bad. In some games, that can be a bad design element because it creates an incongruous environment and ruins the sense of immersion. In another game, like katamari damacy it might just be part of the game's aesthetic, and the game 'uses' it to good effect. The important thing to get here is that you're not picking his arguments apart, and you're not finding counter examples.

ludwigk

Oh, also a spoilerless Twinkie-denial for whoever designed Metal Gear Solid 4's environments: Why the hell can Snake climb over SOME crates and obstacles, but not others? The teensiest bit of debris on a counter made it impossible to jump over a bar counter early in the game, and we're talking about a few broken, empty crates here. Stuff weak little me could shove away without any trouble.

The worst case of this I've come across so far (I'm about five hours in) is a certain area in the game where you have to get to a certain point, yet for some reason the game refuses to let you pass over piles of debris you KNOW you could easily have walked over otherwise. The game won't let you squirm your way through a bit of barbed wire, either, even if you've cleared the area of enemies, and the only people on patrol are people you've allied yourself with through a bit of costume usage.

When this kinda stuff happens, the game turns into a game of constantly checking the minimap to see if the obstacle you're in front of at the moment counts as impassable, and looking for the insanely convoluted way out. In the above-mentioned example, it turned out to be one out of four ladders in the area. And as if to rub salt into the player's wound, the moment after I'd dropped down on the other side of the barbed wire I couldn't slip through, a bulldozer came in in a cutscene and tore the wire fence down. Grah!

MrPerson

@Vecha: I think it's been done before actually....

Ajh

On the subject of unclear goals, I nominate that photographer guy you encounter near the beginning of Dead Rising as a prime example. At some point, he came up with some obhjective that I just couldn't get figured out what he wanted no matter how many times I tried it (don't remember exactly which one it was, since I got rid of my copy some time ago.) Eventually I just got sick of the guy and chainsawed him into oblivion so he'd go away...

...at which point the game awarded the achievement for killing a psychopath. I'm pretty sure that wasn't what was supposed to happen (at least not at the time anyway) but I wasn't inclined to bother trying any further.

Vexorg

@MrPerson: Yes, MGS4 has some pretty annoying design quirks to it. I had those same problems with it. It's still a great game despite all that though.

Wubbytoes

@haruna: I have no problem with entertaining-complaint articles, but it bothered me to read if you can't convert the controls properly from PC to console (or vice versa), drop your support for that platform.

With the vast majority of titles, the person who would notice that the controls for a conversion are ergonomically deficient is very, very, very far from the person who decides what games are going to be produced and for which platforms.

Campion of Drymouth

@TeknoVagrant: Simpsons? I thought it was family guy.....

CerberusXTX

@Unknown-User: Or you're supposed to cover and approach, plant yourself and set up a game suggested firing lane.....and then everyone on your team decides to suddenly run into said lane at once.

Parsifal

This year's list is kinda shoddy. Timed demos? Dumb AI (already covered)? Interactive cutscenes? Come on!

What about:
BWM (Bald White Male) syndrome?
Right-stick attacks?
The "Boss parade" before the final boss?
Senseless dismemberment?
Unfinished episodic games (Sin/Shenmue)?
Wacky, wacky weapons (aka - one-trick ponies)?

Mr, Adams? No twinkie for YOU!

boopadoo

So how do you succeed in the Dawn of War mission?

Don't leave us hanging.

Kohath

Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

That's one big Twinkie

Punctured Bag

The point using Shadow of the Colossus as an example of controlling a character in a sequence where there is only one outcome is just garbage...completely missing what the point of what this design choice is. It's not about "fake interactivity," whatever that is, but it's an attempt to connect the gamer to the character. And I think it work quite well, something only gameplay can do, not cutscenes. *spoilers coming* I remember that part of the game quite vividly exactly because I was still controlling the character, and feeling the same way as Wander trying not to be pulled back while he reaches towards the girl, which has been the motivation the entire game.

SaudaminiDarnisha

One thing that bugs me is when a game gives you a mission or objective but it is sometimes impossible to win the first time. It occurs most in sandbox games. There are so many random things that can occur. For instance, suppose I'm supposed to tail a car without the driver getting hurt, scared, or whatever, but then some random car happens to hit it for no reason and I get a "mission failed" despite not doing anything. I've had many weird occurances happen during my Grand Theft Auto missions.

It's sometimes actually funny, though. I don't think it'd be such an issue if checkpoints were better. I hate spending a long time doing something over, especially if failing wasn't my fault.

Coltage

I disagree with some of the things said in the "fake" interactivity section. I like cutscenes that depend on my input. I agree that my lack of input should matter one way or another (like at the end of metal gear solid 3 when it prompts you to give a killing blow to the final boss, if you let it sit for a minute, the same thing happens as if you did what you were prompted to do). I mean, in that situation there should have been a negative or positive consequence to not doing what the game wants you to do. QTE style events where you die or get set back if you don't do the proper movements I think are fun and should continue to be in games. Especially if we ever see another Shenmue.

The Amazing Exploding-Man

@Shin-san: I'm not one for twinkies either... but that sounds tempting >o>

corme

@Ravenhood:

I prefer subtitles because I can typically read the dialog faster than the actors can speak it, at least in cutscenes where you can manually advance the dialog.

Powerlurker