Mechanics you dislike

[CraneSoft]

This money & shops discussion reminded me of old RPGs with crafting systems where certain early-game items would become completely unobtainable in the endgame. Except...you need to hoard some of those beginner junk in decent quantities in advance as they are required to craft endgame gear. I loathed the system and to this day I still don't understand the intent behind such a design choice other than the devs being sadistic. ****ing FFIX.

Also, I hate it when games kill off important vendors and shopkeepers without warning (when the player is not directly responsible for their deaths), locking out their shop permanently for the rest of current playthrough, especially if they sell items that are also unobtainable elsewhere. Like...I am fine with killing off shopkeepers, but please don't lock exclusive stuff to them and not letting me know I'll lose access to their shops until it's too late.

Thankfully, these scrappy mechanics are mostly absent from modern RPGs.

 

[kirbwarrior]

Oh, I don't even give FE crap for that. After all, taking out an enemy general is a great way to drop morale and send soldiers scattering. There's also the fact that FE Lords are usually the only ones who can wield the necessary weapons to kill the big threat.

@The Stranger What game were you playing?

I mostly brought FE up because it's such an integral part of the game. In fact, the first 5 FE games had a hidden "taunt" mechanic where enemies will go after the lord instead of anyone else, some even to the point of attacking the lord instead of getting a guaranteed kill. It's beautiful, it works well, it ties into how everything in the game works.

I've never been a fan of games that require money for things I'm not explicitly paying an NPC for. Crafting systems that require money? That makes sense if I'm paying a blacksmith for work, but if the team has the tools themselves?

You could just as easily replace money with a reputation system. Do enough quests and the npcs will just give you better gear or items. Games like State of Decay do this.

You could replace cash with a number of abstract systems if you really wanted to, though. You could even do away with it entirely if it's not all that important in your game.

I love, love, love DQB2 and similar games of having an abstract concept and turning it into a quantifiable currency. In DQB2, you get Gratitude for helping people out, which early on unlocks things and later on lets you straight up buy create things wholesale. And I've had plenty of conversations and game ideas that throw currency as a mechanic out the window.

Well, not all the time. Henry Stickman is all about the false choices, for example.

Nearly every mechanic can work when it's the point. Henry Stickman is only pick-a-path, the point is to see the failures, laugh at them, then go back and pick another failure until you've seen them all and pick the success.

And this applies to other "problems"; Puzzles in rpgs seem to often be terrible/generic/repetitive, but puzzle games are fantastic and often do simple changes to formulas to be super fun. Mini-games can get in the way of the pacing or even the development, but "battles" are themselves mini-games that the game builds itself around. Crafting is something I normally find dumb in rpgs, but a game that is literally nothing but crafting (check out my sig) can be fantastic!

 

[Seacliff]

One thing that's just as annoying as high encounter rates but few people talk about are annoying touch encounter systems.

I really hate touch encounter systems where the enemy or player gets advantage based on who touches the other's back. Often, it causes the enemy and player to dance around each other on the map until the player gives up. At worst, it creates frustrating scenarios where enemies sneak up on players from out of the camera's range, which really isn't any better than an actual random encounter system.

Other annoying stuff is where level design is too narrow to dodge any touch encounters, touch encounters that chase you at a much faster speed than the player, and touch encounters that respawn way too quickly.

I can't imagine stuff like this doesn't cause frustrations for most people who play these games, I swear a lot of player keep silent about it because they believe a awfully implemented touch encounter system to be the lesser evil to any random encounter system.

If there's one benefit to touch encounters from a game developer standpoint, it's that you can get a little lazy with it and get away with it, just slap a script/plugin that has minimum steps between encounters and the worst issues are gone. With touch encounters, however, you really need to give the mechanic attention if you want it to be interesting and unintrusive. I personally really like intricate touch encounters like those in Persona 5, where engaging with the game's simple psedu-stealth mechanics are encouraged to not get surprised.

 

[kirbwarrior]

I really hate touch encounter systems where the enemy or player gets advantage based on who touches the other's back. Often, it causes the enemy and player to dance around each other on the map until the player gives up. At worst, it creates frustrating scenarios where enemies sneak up on players from out of the camera's range, which really isn't any better than an actual random encounter system.

I can't really imagine it working well in RPG Maker no matter how much effort you put into it. Something like Paper Mario can work because of the lack of rigid movement/grid and the ability to "attack" out of battle (because jumping and hammering are part of exploration).

 

[RCXGaming]

I can't really imagine it working well in RPG Maker no matter how much effort you put into it. Something like Paper Mario can work because of the lack of rigid movement/grid and the ability to "attack" out of battle (because jumping and hammering are part of exploration).

I don't think you even can do this kind of thing in RPG Maker, since I haven't seen/found a script that makes it so enemies you tap from behind have an altered surprise state.

That said, I very much agree with @Seacliff about touch encounters. I like it when the maps are accommodated to fit the size of enemies you have to avoid, as opposed to most places having tight corridors for some reason.

I feel touch encounters would be greatly improved by stealth systems in general, like line of sight and using sound to mislead the enemies away from the spot you're trying to go to. The former would be very nice by itself because at least you can go behind/around them without a chase happening + you can see their range so you don't get surprised.

I mean. It'd be much better than them just gravitating towards you the instant you enter their range.

 

[Tai_MT]

I haven't tried it myself, but couldn't you theoretically track the direction being faced by the player and the monster using Conditionals or perhaps variables?

You could have the "surprise" only happen based upon the player clicking the enemy rather than the enemy "touching" the player.

Then, you just set it as a conditional. "If Player is facing X direction and event is facing Y direction, initiate troop combat with Z. Conditional of combat start A based on what the Conditionals state. The only thing I'm not sure on is whether or not you can "force" a particular advantage/disadvantage on combat before it happens. Or, even as a conditional of that combat happening.

I think the most difficult things would probably be:

1. Determining whether the player touches the enemy in the back or the enemy touched the player in the back. Could probably be done with a decently robust system of variables that would track position and orientation. Might lag the game though if running through a parallel process or common event. Hmmm... could you create a single "Common Event" that is called for every single encounter that would determine the encounter? That might be interesting...

2. Figuring out how you can "give advantage" in combat. I'm not really sure there's an "easy" way to do this. Maybe give all enemies two new attacks for "surprise"? Could have them use a "Do Nothing" attack where it literally does nothing and could just flash the text "Surprised!". Then, if they get the advantage, give them a new attack that "always goes first" (not hard to program) and have it say, "Ambushed!".

But, then, you'd have to be able to turn off the normal "combat advantage" nonsense the engine is probably hard coded with. You could probably go in and fix some coding in there or something for that.

 

[zXManyRegretsXz]

Me being allowed to ramble near endlessly about things? Joy!

Skill type that's one-upped by other skill types - If you have two different skill types, like Magic and Special in RPG Maker games, but one of them is sidetracked by the other simply because it's better in every single way, then that's a negative. Skies of Arcadia, a game I thoroughly enjoy, has this issue where Magic is way too costly and weak while Super Moves are flashy and powerful while costing a reasonable amount, meaning that Magic is essentially useless, and is even upstaged by items that mimic the magic. Still a great game, though.

Improper scaling - Battles are built around balance, and scaling is one way to properly balance a game. So improper scaling is very much detrimental to games with battles, since battles can wildly shift between baby easy or instant TPK.

Single chance choices that lead to game-overs or bad endings... unless knowledge can subvert it - Phoenix Wright, in my opinion, does this right (and also wrong, but pobody's nerfect), especially in the final case of the second game, Justice for All, where you have one chance to present the right evidence to the right witness in order to get the good ending, otherwise its a bad end for you. If you paid attention to the facts of the case and what you know about the characters, the one chance you get becomes tense yet satisfying to beat (especially if your grasp on the case is very tenuous). If it's just random chance, or requires deep knowledge that isn't properly justified, then it's a very poor thing to do.

Challenge via bloated stats - I love a challenge. I love marathoning through a challenge. I don't mind if a boss takes a long time to beat, since endurance matches are all fine by me. It can lead to resource management as a boss takes your resources down to 0, forcing you to adapt and choose how to play carefully (ofc, this is hard to pull off properly). What I don't enjoy is if the challenge, especially for endurance runs, is simply due to bloating the stats up to make the boss a chore to beat, kind of like mopping the floors of a school.

Pay to win aspects - Self explanatory.

"Saggy middle syndrome" - Less of a mechanic issue and more of a symptom of the mechanics, but eh, it works. Saggy middle syndrome is a colloquial term in writing that says that the middle gets a bit bogged down or bloated by details and the like, leading to it slowing down and getting boring. It can also be applied to games by way of gameplay. If the middle of the game's gameplay ends up feeling dull, boring, or otherwise the game itself is slowed down, then that's this. It's usually a result of the plot slowing down, but in other cases it can be because of a lack of interesting gameplay, like bog standard battles. This makes the game very boring, and due to it I usually never end up finishing games with promising starts.

---

Wow, less rambling than I thought. Then again, if I was allowed to ramble about story and plot this would end up being a lot longer.

 

[kirbwarrior]

I don't think you even can do this kind of thing in RPG Maker, since I haven't seen/found a script that makes it so enemies you tap from behind have an altered surprise state.

There's a plugin or three made by Yanfly specifically to deal with this situation. And it still does it pretty badly (no offence to Yanfly, what the plugin does do is fantastic, but trying to pull of this is just going to be hard on the developer of the game no matter what).

"Saggy middle syndrome" - Less of a mechanic issue and more of a symptom of the mechanics, but eh, it works. Saggy middle syndrome is a colloquial term in writing that says that the middle gets a bit bogged down or bloated by details and the like, leading to it slowing down and getting boring. It can also be applied to games by way of gameplay. If the middle of the game's gameplay ends up feeling dull, boring, or otherwise the game itself is slowed down, then that's this. It's usually a result of the plot slowing down, but in other cases it can be because of a lack of interesting gameplay, like bog standard battles. This makes the game very boring, and due to it I usually never end up finishing games with promising starts.

I've never heard of this before, specifically with gaming (I've definitely read books like this). I like DQ7, but it probably suffers from this (thinking of games I've played off the top of my head).

 

[zXManyRegretsXz]

"Saggy middle syndrome" - Less of a mechanic issue and more of a symptom of the mechanics, but eh, it works. Saggy middle syndrome is a colloquial term in writing that says that the middle gets a bit bogged down or bloated by details and the like, leading to it slowing down and getting boring. It can also be applied to games by way of gameplay. If the middle of the game's gameplay ends up feeling dull, boring, or otherwise the game itself is slowed down, then that's this. It's usually a result of the plot slowing down, but in other cases it can be because of a lack of interesting gameplay, like bog standard battles. This makes the game very boring, and due to it I usually never end up finishing games with promising starts.

I've never heard of this before, specifically with gaming (I've definitely read books like this). I like DQ7, but it probably suffers from this (thinking of games I've played off the top of my head).

Yeah, it doesn't really exist as a term for games, but I thought it was very much applicable to games if thought about in terms of gameplay (and plot, but hey, this is about mechanics)

 

[atoms]

RPG Maker related. I sometimes put up with it, but I don't really like having the player character walk slower than the default speed set by the engine, and not being able to dash. I've seen more than a few RPG Maker games do this. Most people don't seem to be put off by it, and people can do what they want, but I'm just saying for me it's a mechanic that I dislike.

 

[eomereolsson]

@atoms Oh yes, I am with you on that one. On the actual topic of the thread: I dislike stamina mechanics that limit the time I can dash. Especially when there is literally no point to them, other to slow me down.
Closely related but not about actual game mechanics: Why do some games remove the 'Alwas Dash' option? Especially when they do allow dashing? Why do you want me to press shift the entire time I am playing your game?

 

[atoms]

@eomereolsson I feel that way too. I can put up with stamina bars a little more than not dashing at all at slow speed, but I usually dislike those too. Other than rare cases where it makes some sense to turn off 'Always Dash', like maybe a single map or section of the game that's a stealth-like event system on the map, a minigame that involves it, or some other good reason, I just don't like being so slow. I feel it may add to the game's overall "time played" and that's why people do it? I really don't know the reasoning.

 

[Frostorm]

Gatcha mechanics...gawd, the mobile market is rampant with games built around it. It's like the worst part of RNG and pay-to-win mechanics at the same time.

 

[Tiamat-86]

Gatcha mechanics...gawd, the mobile market is rampant with games built around it. It's like the worst part of RNG and pay-to-win mechanics at the same time.

can agree to this. its a fine mechanic for purely optional minigame but when you tie RNG into game progression its literally a luck based roadblock. either you get lucky and only get stuck for a few seconds or unlucky and you just straight up cant progress until your luck changes.

then theres games like G.I. where characters, weapons, skills are all gated behind gatcha RNG. that crap just isnt fun for someone that wants to unlock everything. if it was RNG to unlock just a few optional things it could be passible (like pokemon games unlocking TMs through mini games)
but gating a large portion of the game behind it just not cool.

---

along the lines of "someone that wants to unlock everything".
games where you just cant unlock everything in 1 playthrough. (chrono cross and FF9 are guilty of this)
(CC) if you take branch A you get character X. but you'll never be able to get these other 2 characters.
(FF9) if you want this BiS weapon you'll have to speedrun to the 2nd last boss because theres a time restriction, but progressing to that point locks you out of 99% of locations. so you cant do most of the other optional content.
both of those games you literally have to cheat if you want a 100% collection file.

 

[IvanForever]

along the lines of "someone that wants to unlock everything".
games where you just cant unlock everything in 1 playthrough. (chrono cross and FF9 are guilty of this)
(CC) if you take branch A you get character X. but you'll never be able to get these other 2 characters.
(FF9) if you want this BiS weapon you'll have to speedrun to the 2nd last boss because theres a time restriction, but progressing to that point locks you out of 99% of locations. so you cant do most of the other optional content.
both of those games you literally have to cheat if you want a 100% collection file.

I second this very much. I tried to get as many Chrono Cross characters but it sucked when I can never have all characters in one playthrough. Spent quite numerous playthroughs for Chrono Cross, while the FF9 one I never bothered to do. I think I had something with the Tetra Master card game as well, though that might be possible for one playthrough; just felt like an additional "boring" or "too hard" thing to do in the game when I'd rather battle enemies or do more interesting quests. I felt the card game in FF9 was not as straightforward as the one in FF8. I completed FF8's card-related side quests and was immersed in it, but FF9's felt like a chore. But the want-to-complete-everything side of me is "bothered" I didn't complete it.

I also want to add in-game and/or Steam Achievements such as:
- Spend more than X hours on the game
- Complete the game in less than X hours
- Have X fights (especially when it takes around 1000 battles to reach the end of the game, but the Achievement states 3000 fights or 5000 fights)
- Beat the game again in New Game+ (I already beat the game once and spent 20+ or 80+ hours, but I have to beat it again just to get that Achievement unlocked. I would rather that I play New Game+ because I loved the game so much I wanted another round, and not for the sake of Achievement completion.)
- Defeat X enemies and/or have Y character defeat X enemies
- Collect all of the items/skills/etc. (When it involves some kind of RNG or luck thing, and/or the process involves grinding or going back and forth on maps...)

I started to resort to Cheat Engine and using other people's save files for some of these.... and I still have not unlocked all of these yet, after maybe 20+ hours.

 

[wilpuri]

Main characters who give you a Game Over when they go down, even if the rest of the party is still up.

Oh no, I have this in my current project, but it really isn’t a party based game.
The story is only about the main character and others are simply random people who may help you for a while.
I am still not decided if it’s instant Game Over during a battle if someone else is still up, the story of the game needs the main dude alive.

 

[Tiamat-86]

I think I had something with the Tetra Master card game as well, though that might be possible for one playthrough; just felt like an additional "boring" or "too hard" thing to do in the game when I'd rather battle enemies or do more interesting quests. I felt the card game in FF9 was not as straightforward as the one in FF8.

9's card game was heavily RNG based + hidden weighted RNG in favor of higher level monsters.
ie. a 5 vs 4 the 5 is a low level monster from the page 1 card list. the 4 is a higher level monster on page 3 list. the 4 will win most the time. winning that 1st mandatory card tournament was heavily RNG based.

while FF8/11(PO launcher, not in game)/14's card game it was just "what you see is what it is" so unless your playing with the reverse rule (or something like addition rule) the higher number will always win

 

[ericv00]

I also want to add in-game and/or Steam Achievements such as...

Yup. Achievements are supposed to be hard. Something you go out of your way to accomplish with exceptional skills. I wish people could except that you don't need to complete them. They exist for bragging rights, and if the accomplishment is not worth bragging about, it's not worth achieving.

Personally, I think they should always involve optional content, not mainline progression. They should always involve skill, not tedium.

 

[pawsplay]

Oh no, I have this in my current project, but it really isn’t a party based game.
The story is only about the main character and others are simply random people who may help you for a while.
I am still not decided if it’s instant Game Over during a battle if someone else is still up, the story of the game needs the main dude alive.

Mainly this is annoying when the game otherwise allows revival.

 

[TheoAllen]

Lemme add.
Time-gate and punishment for playing too much. ESO did this. And I believe many MMOs did this (makes me wonder why I even bother playing MMO). In ESO, you have an exp boost you can stack when you haven't been played for a while. The problem is when I feel like playing all day, realizing that I have used up all my exp boost and doing something in-game doesn't feel rewarding anymore. Ultimately, it controls how and when I play. Then I quit the game entirely.