Elements/Tropes You Hate in Video Games

[Sonic Fan J]

23 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Or if you decide the game really needs "numbers go up", have level-ups at fixed points in the game. Beat the first boss, go from level 1 to level 2. Beat the second boss, go from level 2 to level 3. Your characters get to become numerically stronger over the course of the game, but in a way that the developers can plan around directly.

I actually like this idea and am glad that I read it before making the obligatory reminded that most RPG systems are based on pen and paper games that follow that method, most notably Dungeons & Dragons. Though, I think another approach is actually to follow more the example of how games like the Zelda franchise and its imitators do by having in world events be what makes you stronger (Finding hearts that increase your life bar and better equipment as you say).

[Tara]

Something that came to mind recently that some may not necessarily agree on, but whatever.

Weapon'/upgrade stores in games that aren't RPG's.

Examples: Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Sonic and the Secret Rings, Sonic Generations, some of the later Mega Man X games, some others I'm forgetting even though it's a pretty ubiquitous trope.

As a general disclaimer, I don't dislike it when a non-RPG game attempts to implement elements of RPG games into it.  If done right, this can be a great way to flesh out and add depth to a relatively simple formula and keep it from becoming too stale.  I don't even hate this trope if it's done right, because it can be done well.  But in most cases, I find them to be damaging to the overall level design philosophy of a game.

The reason stores like this work in RPG's, or at least in classic RPG's, is because RPG's are about measuring statistics and taking educated risks.  You either use the weapon with the highest attack power, or the one that is weaker but has an effect that might come in handy.  You can buy a new weapon every time you find yourself in a new town, but at the cost that some or all of the upgrades you put on the previous weapon will be lost.  There are plenty of RPG's where weapon selection is simplified down to just "use the one that has the highest attack stats."  But in that case, the in-game economy will usually be pretty restrictive, with higher weapons becoming increasingly more expensive.  This forces you to think carefully about how you choose to progress.  Do you stock up on more powerful weapons, or do you stock up on more healing items?  Of course, I'm not saying every RPG does this right.  I've played plenty of RPG's that are so simple that I'm always able to buy the latest upgrades and stock up on more healing items than I'll ever need and then still have enough left over to pay off college tuition (recent Pokémon games have been particularly bad in this regard), but the principle is still there.

But when you incorporate it into a platformer or a third-person shooter, I feel like it damages the level design philosophy.  Now every level has to account for a vast number of different inventories.  As a result, the level is no longer designed around the idea of the player having to use what the level gives them, using the items allowed and environments to their advantage.  Now, they're structured around the idea of giving you a sort of playing field for whatever inventory you happen to choose.  Sure, it's possible to also construct a level where it's more strategically viable to select certain items for certain levels, and that's a good step in the right direction.  But more often than not, the extent to the depths of the system is simply picking a setup that is objectively better.  Like, obviously having an assault rifle with an extended magazine, a laser sight for enhanced accuracy, and increased fire power for double damage would be much more preferable than... you know... not having that.

In Sonic Generations, the item shop seems to serve little purpose but to make what is already a pretty easy game even easier.  And even then, the only item I really use is the one that gives me a full boost meter.  It's not a game-breaking deal and can easily be ignored if desired, but that's also sort of a problem I have with it.  Conversely, Splinter Cell: Conviction and Splinter Cell: Blacklist (both games that I'm sort of mixed on for completely overhauling the gameplay of its predecessors already), have weapon caches mid-level (although in the latter, you can't use them on Perfectionist difficulty).  As a result, the game tends to feel a little bit shallow.  the player no longer has to worry about conservation of resources, as they did in the previous games.  In the very first Splinter Cell game, during the training mission, you are explicitly told "Your weapon is your last resort."  But now, there's no penalty for just running and gunning every which way (though once again, on Perfectionist difficulty in Blacklist, they discourage this by essentially nerfing your character so he can only take a few hits).  The levels as a result have become more linear, focusing instead on giving you room to use your new weapons and gadgets, as opposed to solving practical problems using only what you were given at the start of the game and what you find along the way.

Moving away from Splinter Cell, let's imagine a hypothetical game where you're mowing down enemies, rather by shooting them with guns or jumping on their heads or insulting their mother or what have you.  Towards the end of the course, you are faced with an enemy that is tougher than usual and caries a weapon that is not so easily countered.  What some might call a boss fight.  Or maybe just a mini boss.  In my ideal game, you would use what you have and your sense of strategy in order to find a way to defeat him.  Maybe you're out of ammo for the gun that would quickly take him out, so you have to think of some other way.  So the level design philosophy is based around you having to doing to do that.  Weapons placement would be important.  If it's a game that allows you to take your enemy's weapon after defeating them, then it's important to know which enemies to designate to certain weapons, positioning them where they will be most useful without being too obvious or forcing your will onto the player.  New players will have to experiment with different techniques in order to get the upper hand, while advanced players will know to properly conserve a specific resource, or to just be more careful not to take too much damage before they get there.  It's a system that, while perhaps relying a little too much on hindsight, rewards the player for experimentation and forces them to think carefully about their approach.

But with a weapons store conveniently located before giant dual-bazooka wielding guy on steroids, you will always have the most effective weapon or upgrades, regardless of your skills.  It intrinsically separates the way the player plays and the level itself from the actual experience.  Of course, I'm aware that many of these item store-like things are intended to be rewards upon completing the game and are meant to be a way of creating replay value.  I mean, I do enjoy the idea of re-playing old levels with all my new weapons and gadgets and upgrades earned in the main campaign.  It's why I think the Batman: Arkham series' new game plus mode is extremely enjoyable.  But I think weapon stores are kind of a shallow way of doing that.  Especially since, often times, the currency used to buy these weapons tends to be earned through repetitively grinding through the same levels over and over again.  In Generations, it's by collecting rings, which you get through completing acts.  In Splinter Cell: Blacklist, it's by completing missions which become incredibly stale after awhile.

Also worth a note is that these stores tend to coincide with but are not necessarily synonymous with microtransactions, loot boxes, etc.  And other people have already went into great lengths explaining why those are bad.

For all its faults, I think the one game that I've played that does this trope really well is probably Sonic and the Secret Rings.  Like, I'm not defending the game on the basis of controls or story or anything.  But I do think the upgrades are actually an interesting mechanic.  For one, you are limited in which upgrades you can use at a time (which I think is true of Generations as well, but I don't remember and like I said most of the items in that game aren't really necessary anyway).  Second, the upgrades don't really make the game easier or harder.  They just change how Sonic controls and what he can do.  For example his max speed might change depending on what abilities he has in the ring.  Having an ability that allows Sonic to come to a quick halt might be useful for those missions where you're penalized for breaking jars.  Conversely, having a faster starting speed would be useful for timed missions.  So let's take a hypothetical scenario where both those things are combined, the player is now forced to consider which items to use in order to both make traversing the stage easier, but also helps them get through as fast as possible.  It's an intuitive little risk/reward system, I think.

Basically, I hate in-game shops like this, and I feel like level design in modern games has suffered as a result of them.  They're not so bad that they would keep me from playing a game I might otherwise enjoy, but I don't feel like we'd be any worse off for their exclusion.

Other tropes I hate but don't really feel like going into right now: Quick-Time events, boss battles where the health meter doesn't deplete all the way, weapon durability, stamina meters, some others I can't think of right now.