Things that ruin games.

Not knowing what to do in a game is one of the worst feelings for me; especially when after spending a significant chunk of time and finally succumbing to the urge to look up the answer, I realize the answer was something I couldn't possibly have been expected to know or figure out. Adventure games seem to be the biggest culprits of this, although I have seen it in other genres.
 
If you play on PC, shader compilation stuttering.
 
theDLCguy said:
Not knowing what to do in a game is one of the worst feelings for me; especially when after spending a significant chunk of time and finally succumbing to the urge to look up the answer, I realize the answer was something I couldn't possibly have been expected to know or figure out. Adventure games seem to be the biggest culprits of this, although I have seen it in other genres.
Click to expand...
Agreed. While I don't need my hand held, I would at least like a hint as to what to do or where to go in order to make progress.
 
I'm the lil bro. said:
The sticker system isn't a bad idea in and of itself, but it works against the rest of the battle system, making it so battles aren't rewarding because they take away a limited resource to attack with.
Click to expand...
And speaking of limiting, you can't choose who you're going to attack, and while it can be strategized around, it feels like an unnecessary way of further limiting what I can do for a system that already limits how I can attack to begin with. The third Kamek fight in Sticker Star and the Dino Rhino Tamer encounter in Color Splash show the reason why not being able to choose which enemy to attack isn't a good design choice, especially when you have enemies whose behavior depends on another enemy. Another thing that further limits my options for attacking is inventory space, specifically the size of certain stickers. Bigger stickers take up more space in your album than smaller ones, meaning they may be more important, and your inventory space only expands after beating a boss and obtaining a Royal Sticker.

Color Splash's battle system is overall worse than Sticker Star's battle system. In Sticker Star, all you have to do is pick a sticker to use in battle. In Color Splash, you have to select a card using the Wii U Gamepad, fill it up with paint if it doesn't have any, and flick it onto the TV once you've selected it. Preparing to attack with Battle Cards takes longer than doing the same thing with Stickers, though there are different ways to do this. Combat Controls come in three different types: Basic, Basic + Buttons, and Advanced Touch Controls, and each control scheme has its advantages and disadvantages. This manages how you control picking, coloring, sorting, and playing your cards. "Basic" is objectively the worst option, as it's all touch controls on the GamePad, where you scroll through the cards by sliding the stylus, drag the card you want to the front, when asked to confirm it asks you to color in your cards with paint if they don't have any, and then flick them onto your TV. You're essentially confirming what you want to do three times per turn. "Basic + Buttons" is the most popular way to play the game, but even this has a glaring issue. It's the same as "Basic", except you can navigate the menu with the Control Stick, D-Pad, and face buttons. Instead of tedious touch controls, you navigate the menu the same way you would in any other RPG, but you're still taking up my time by having three separate menus for one turn. "Advanced Touch Controls" isn't as bad as it sounds. This is Basic Controls with one less step. There's no "Paint the Cards" screen, because you can paint the Cards as soon as you drag them onto the Card selection, streamlining the process. However, my question is, why do we need three separate control schemes? Why not give us just the one? Just have the "Basic + Buttons" controls, and add the ability to paint the Cards after you select them, like "Advanced Touch Controls" has. It's the best part of every single control scheme. It's still too many steps for what should be a simple turn-based menu, but if you're going to insist on having these mechanics, at least make them fun.

Another issue with Color Splash's battle system is that it limits what you can do in combat further by having the paint mechanic. I love this mechanic in the overworld, as it is a genius way of implementing a collectathon system that encourages players to explore the world. However, it's carried over into combat, where you can get blank cards that require you to fill them in with the same paint meter you have in the overworld. On the whole, it doesn't make a huge difference, but it's still an extra resource you can run out of, and it will not be fun when it happens, especially if you're near the end of the game. Also, while you don't have as limiting an inventory as in Sticker Star, Color Splash makes up for it in how quickly you burn through Cards and how scarce they are. It's great that you can hold up to 100 Cards in your inventory that are all the same size, so you don't have to worry about making sure they all fit. There's just one problem: Cards are only found in Question Blocks, by painting blank areas in the overworld, and after winning a battle, instead of on the environment like Stickers are in Sticker Star. But it's kind of a sunk cost, as you'll usually use more Cards than you get back after a fight, meaning you'll typically end up with less Cards than what you started with, so much like the previous game, there's not really an incentive to engage enemies other than Coins to buy more Cards.

Oh, and I need to talk about Replica Cards. The Replica watermark is funny the first time, but it gets obnoxious really quickly. They also do less damage than the real Thing cards, and on top of that, there's one other thing that Replicas do, which is a much bigger deal than just dealing less damage. Because every single Koopaling requires at least one Thing in order to defeat them, and most of them have one hit KO attacks that they'll use unless you play a Thing Card at exactly the right time. Even assuming that the Know-It-All Toad's hint is useful to you during a Koopaling fight, if you you use the Thing too early and are only left with the Replica, you will lose the fight no matter what because the Replica does not affect the Koopaling. The only reason they designed it this way is precisely because you can get Replicas for free during the Battle Spin, potentially giving you what the game assumes is a way to cheat. You're giving me a means to win a fight, only for me to realize that I'm going to lose no matter what simply because I don't have the right version of the Card I need. It could get me out of a tight, otherwise unwinnable situation, but no, I just have to take the loss when you could have made Replicas far more valuable and your game a lot more fun to play.

On the topic of the Know-It-All Toad, he's what I would like to call a Soluçãonemproblema. It's a Portuguese word I made up that roughly translates to, "a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place." One of the many problems with Sticker Star is not knowing what Thing I'm going to need for any given section, because there is no way I can foresee what's coming until I'm already there. And I can only guess that the Know-It-All Toad was created for the purpose of mitigating this problem. I feel justified in my complaints, because it makes me think that one of the developers must have realized how inconvenient not knowing what Thing you'll need next is. However, the Know-It-All Toad doesn't fix anything, but he DOES represent Color Splash's overall design philosophy, which is doubling down on every problem they created with Sticker Star, and adding a mechanic or character that only serves to prove that it's a bad game design choice to begin with. If they designed both Sticker Star and Color Splash better, we wouldn't need to have the Know-It-All Toad. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have him than not, but I'd rather not need an NPC like him in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I do not like when games have pointless busywork that takes up my time for no tangible reward. An example would be Assassin's Creed or other Ubisoft games, which are packed with content that does not feel rewarding to complete yet takes tens of hours to collect. It is optional, but does not feel good to me.
 
I am not very very good at gaming, I just enjoy playing some videogames. So for me, I dislike a videogame when it becomes too difficult for me. I prefer videogames that are easy and that I can finish. When I was into Pocket Monster videogames, I liked some of them...like Pocket Monsters Ruby, Pocket Monster Platinum and Pocket Monsters Crystal...because I could grind my way to finishing the game by defeating all the gym leaders and by defeating the three Elite Fours and by defeating the Champions. Also, I liked the fact that I managed to capture Groudon in Ruby with an Ultra Ball, Latios in Ruby with an Ultra Ball, and Giratina in Platinum with an Ultra Ball (I caught Lugia in Silver with a Master Ball). I also like the Mario Kart videogames, like Mario Kart on the Game Boy Advance and Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart, because I can win them in easy mode. I also like Super Smash Bros Melee and Super Smash Bros 64 because the games are very forgiving and you can select the 'very easy' and 'easy' and 'normal' modes and you can get all the unlocked characters that way...and you can still achieve a lot in both videogames and you can have fun in both videogames without having to face a lot of difficulty. I also like Kirby's Dream Land (the first ever Kirby videogame) because I managed to complete it...even though it was a bit tricky. I also like Spider-Man: Mysterio's Menace on the Game Boy Advance because I managed to complete it in easy mode. I like some early arcade games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong 1981 and Space Invaders and Galaxian because I can finish some of the early levels (with Pac-Man and Donkey Kong 1981, I can finish many levels). The difficult stage levels in Super Mario Sunshine...like the Sand Bird (even though I managed to complete that particular level) put me off from liking the videogame that much. The quite high difficulty in the original Super Mario Bros and in Super Mario Land 1 and Mario vs Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong 1994 all put me off from liking those videogames because I really wanted to see King Koopa in World 8-4 and I like seeing Donkey Kong in boss fights but the levels are difficult.

I sometimes like the timers in many 2D Mario games...like Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 3, Mario vs Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 1994...because it makes me feel like Mario is on a clock and he has to save Pauline and Princess Peach before it's too late. But on the other hand, I think I like non-timed Mario games like Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine because you can feel more relaxed and you feel more freedom to explore and have fun...whereas timed stages can make you feel less relaxed and it takes away some of the enjoyment.

Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World and Megaman 1 are all difficult (well SMB3 and SMW are not that difficult...just a bit...but Megaman 1 is very difficult for me) so that makes me not like those videogames that much. Other things that ruins videogames are when characters are changed a lot for no good reason or when the storyline is not likeable to me. For example, in one of the Crash Bandicoot things, they changed a character's design completely and he changed from being a badass, scary-looking, huge Tasmanian tiger to a soft-spoken, soft-looking, Mike Tyson-like Bengal tiger...so understandably, I and many other people were very disappointed with the changes made to that particular Crash Bandicoot character. The storylines which show a human kissing Sonic on the lips (I think it was the Sonic 2006 videogame) and King Koopa trying to marry Princess Peach (in Super Mario Odyssey) also make me cringe with disgust because those two particular videogames are showing bestiality, and obviously I think that bestiality is immoral. Also, I personally did not like the Cappy-possession/capturing gimmick that can be done in Super Mario Odyssey because the idea of possession is just weird. I would not like it if Mario possessed me temporarily with the help of Cappy, for example. I think the too-much-cat-obsessed theme in some of the Mario 3D videogames made me not like those videogames as much because I personally do not like cats that much and I also thought that the badassery of King Koopa was taken away when you saw a lot of cat-like King Koopas (Meowsers) chasing the hero at the end. I think Super Mario 64 maybe has the best 3D Mario videogame storyline out of all 3D Mario videogames so far. I do like a lot of the aspects of Super Mario Sunshine, but forcing Mario to clean up an island does not sound like a fun time to be spending a vacation on an exotic island, to me...so again, the storyline was a bit off to me. But in Super Mario 64, there is more freedom in the storyline and the Super Mario 64 storyline sounds more like a fun-exploration storyline than Super Mario Sunshine's storyline.

I know that videogame bosses are sometimes supposed to be difficult, but I do not like it when videogame bosses are so difficult that I have to keep repeating the fight because I lose to the boss often in fights...I do not like it when I can never progress to the next stage or level because a videogame boss is too hard. I do not like fighting videogames where the opponents and bosses are too hard for me to defeat...like in Street Fighter 2 (I still cannot beat Sagat...but to be fair, I was playing Street Fighter 2 on the computer so I was not using the original console) and in Mortal Kombat 1 and in one of the early Virtua Fighter games. I liked Tekken 3, because I managed to defeat the whole arcade storyline in Tekken 3...and it was not that hard. Also, I like playing as attractive female videogame characters like Nina from Tekken 3 and Sonya Blade in Mortal Kombat because I find them attractive, lol. But yeah, I prefer it when I can beat the bosses (I liked how I was able to beat all the bosses in Kirby's Dream Land, for example).

I also like Spider-Man: Mysterio's Menace on the Game Boy Advance because I completed the easy mode a long time ago...even though I never did the normal mode or hard mode. As long as I can complete a videogame on very easy mode or easy mode...then I am fine with the videogame...I do not care about not being able to complete a videogame in normal mode or hard mode or very hard mode. I like the Ultimate Spider-Man videogame on the GameCube because there is free city exploration and there are many challenges which are choosable and the videogame is not linear...and I managed to beat all of the bosses...but the annoying thing was that when I defeated final boss Venom, my GameCube did not continue properly for some reason.
 
Majora64 said:
I do not like when games have pointless busywork that takes up my time for no tangible reward. An example would be Assassin's Creed or other Ubisoft games, which are packed with content that does not feel rewarding to complete yet takes tens of hours to collect. It is optional, but does not feel good to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, your comment reminds me of the 900 plus (I think that was how many moons there are) moons in Super Mario Odyssey that can be collected. I do not mind the number of moons in Super Mario Odyssey, but the way they are collected is by fuelling short dopamine hits...there is sometimes not much enjoyment in collecting some of the moons...like, you sometimes have to do a short and unfulfilling task to collect a moon. Whereas in Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine, collecting the stars and shine sprites felt more rewarding.
 
Absence of creativity. I'm all about the creativity.
 
Yes, today games don't have the passion, the care, the excellence in craft and refinement, today game developers question how much money a games gonna make, not how fun the game will be to play, so they to make things appealing to people who then buy them, and then the game is crap, like sonic forces for say, looks amazing, actually sucks to the finest point, and shows how lazy they were making it, I would continue but the W O N D E R F U L moderators might not like it if I do
 
Chuckles17 said:
Yes, today games don't have the passion, the care, the excellence in craft and refinement, today game developers question how much money a games gonna make, not how fun the game will be to play, so they to make things appealing to people who then buy them, and then the game is crap, like sonic forces for say, looks amazing, actually sucks to the finest point, and shows how lazy they were making it, I would continue but the W O N D E R F U L moderators might not like it if I do
Click to expand...
That is literally how video games have always been fam. It's always been about money.
 
Princess Viola said:
That is literally how video games have always been fam. It's always been about money.
Click to expand...
I get that games have only been about money, thats how it has always been with almost every product ever, but you can't tell me that they didn't try to make them Enjoyable atleast in the past, now they just kinda slap things together and say "PrOfIt" and then it sucks, and because of that people don't but it, and sure some games are great (like Mario wonder for example) but others aren't as lucky (remember how lazy the NEW MM3 was), all I want to be known is that all though it has always been about money, it's become even more about the money and because of that they are pumping out as many games as they can to make that profit
 
If you watched AVGN, you'll know that publishers are just as money hungry as they were back then (having cryptic secrets so you need to buy a guide, arcades nickel and diming you), today just replace LJN with Game Mill. Back in the 2000s era cheap movie tie in games run rampant. All of this is just greed in another form.
 
I do remember the stupidly cryptic secrets and the entire era of arcade machines but just… ow
 
Princess Viola said:
That is literally how video games have always been fam. It's always been about money.
Click to expand...
To be fair there's a grain of truth to how much more avaricious some games have gotten. Just look at the state of The Sims 4 and its expansion packs, and it somehow STILL is lacking in areas vs The Sims 3 and even Sims 2.
 
Chuckles17 said:
I get that games have only been about money, thats how it has always been with almost every product ever, but you can't tell me that they didn't try to make them Enjoyable atleast in the past, now they just kinda slap things together and say "PrOfIt" and then it sucks, and because of that people don't but it, and sure some games are great (like Mario wonder for example) but others aren't as lucky (remember how lazy the NEW MM3 was), all I want to be known is that all though it has always been about money, it's become even more about the money and because of that they are pumping out as many games as they can to make that profit
Click to expand...

You are correct.
 
Ray Trace said:
If you watched AVGN, you'll know that publishers are just as money hungry as they were back then (having cryptic secrets so you need to buy a guide, arcades nickel and diming you), today just replace LJN with Game Mill. Back in the 2000s era cheap movie tie in games run rampant. All of this is just greed in another form.
Click to expand...

I still remember hearing that SNES The Lion King was intentionally made to be hard, all in an attempt to make people buy that game. Likewise, while Final Fantasy VII is known for being among the greatest games in the PS1 era, it's absolutely scandalous that Square Enix decided to make the Ruby Weapon absurdly difficult in an attempt to try to sell even more strategy guides.

But even before the PS1 and SNES eras, a good number of NES games were notorious for their absurd difficulty. While Super Mario Bros. may know how the difficulty curve should be handled, the likes of Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, and Battletoads thrive at making people rage quit right from the start.
 
No autosave or quicksave. The joy of dying somewhere and having to redo 5 other tedious things to get back to the point of where you died.

Graphics/Artstyle that are difficult to interpret. Such as "Is this an object or, Oh, I'm phasing through it, and now something I didn't see is cutting me off, and I fell through what I thought was a floor". Or even just "where is my character exactly, depth perception wise?".
Then there's occasionally text that's too small to read, usually due to bad formatting.
AndsinceOPsaidnottolistdislikesIwontmentionhowannoyingblurrygraphicsarelikeinMinecraft.
 
Last edited:
The fact that when your game crashes for "an UNKNOWN reason", and you lose everything you just did, (e.g., building something in Minecraft, game crash, your build NO LONGER EXISTS) or you get no credit for something you did. (e.g., Getting #1 victory royale in a team battle in a certain game that starts with F, game crash, what Victory?)
 
One thing that ruins games for me is stupid and pointless enemies. Like the fact that in some games, especially handheld games, they have rats as enemies, and you can die and start over to a rat. That's so dumb LOL.
 
This might be an unpopular opinion. This doesn't really ruin a game for me, but I've never been a fan when a series that starts out with defined characters switches to having you create a custom character. The designs often feel more generic to me, and the dialogue for such characters is usually pretty generic as well. I think you should only have a character creator if the game really benefits from it, such as life-sims or rpgs that really focus on being able to create different builds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back