Pet Gaming Peeve: False Openness
Okay, I buy a game that advertises itself as having open skill choice. I have the option to give my characters only non-combat skills. Cool ones like stealth and charming people's socks off and nifty non-combat magic. By this point, I know better, but let's say I'm less jaded. I pick all the skills that look cool, not bothering with a combat skill, with the naive assumption that I'll be able to sneak, charm, or fly my way past combats. And I get utterly smacked around in the first mandatory combat I run into.
Now, what's wrong with this picture? How about how few choices there are in most games for actually advancing the story? The game designer wants me to fight this big impressive boss combat, or even just fight my way through this house full of boring if kinda disgusting/creepy creatures, and damn whether I'd rather just keep sneaking like I've basically been doing at every single opportunity handed to me by the game.
It seems like the thinking in way too many games is, "Let's force them to run through the specific cool scenes I have in mind." There aren't considerations given to enabling alternative solutions such as charming the boss into believing you're his friend come to safeguard the Plot Device, or just straightforward filching it, instead of fighting your way through whatever gimmick-filled boss combat the designer has in mind.
Some games do far better at this than others. But some of them are just... frustrating. They offer multiple modes of play and then it turns out you can only use the modes when you're supposed to. I.e. you have a sneaking sequence and then a combat sequence. You aren't allowed to fight through the stealth sequence or sneak through the combat sequence. This ends up making both players who hate the combat system and players who hate the stealth system unhappy. The only happy ones are the players who like both systems.
Big offenders for this are Beyond Good and Evil (some very good qualities, but irksome controls and the problem I just mentioned) and Sly Cooper. Sly Cooper especially frustrates me in that I found a given stage nearly impossible to do by sneaking around, and then it turns out my roomie had an easier time by just bashing her way through. This in a freaking thief-themed game. But then again, Sly Cooper's really disappointing in that it's basically an action platformer of a type I don't even like with a thin layer of thief theme laid on top, rather than a proper thief-themed game.
Mercenaries, on the other hand, I enjoyed greatly. Sure, it's combat-oriented and there aren't any options to advance the story other than by combat, but stealthy assassination is a viable combat system. I had tons of fun scouting and then working out cunning ways to pick off all obstacles to my goal of capturing every named villain for the bounty. And most importantly, I could play the whole game this way. At times I failed at stealth and had to just gun my way out, but this felt more like a natural consequence of plans going wrong than forced game decisions. And stealth still did its part in getting me close to the target. It never was arbitrarily useless. Overall, I had more of a blast with the game than the previously mentioned. Games. But then again, this was basically a sandbox war action game.
Now, what's wrong with this picture? How about how few choices there are in most games for actually advancing the story? The game designer wants me to fight this big impressive boss combat, or even just fight my way through this house full of boring if kinda disgusting/creepy creatures, and damn whether I'd rather just keep sneaking like I've basically been doing at every single opportunity handed to me by the game.
It seems like the thinking in way too many games is, "Let's force them to run through the specific cool scenes I have in mind." There aren't considerations given to enabling alternative solutions such as charming the boss into believing you're his friend come to safeguard the Plot Device, or just straightforward filching it, instead of fighting your way through whatever gimmick-filled boss combat the designer has in mind.
Some games do far better at this than others. But some of them are just... frustrating. They offer multiple modes of play and then it turns out you can only use the modes when you're supposed to. I.e. you have a sneaking sequence and then a combat sequence. You aren't allowed to fight through the stealth sequence or sneak through the combat sequence. This ends up making both players who hate the combat system and players who hate the stealth system unhappy. The only happy ones are the players who like both systems.
Big offenders for this are Beyond Good and Evil (some very good qualities, but irksome controls and the problem I just mentioned) and Sly Cooper. Sly Cooper especially frustrates me in that I found a given stage nearly impossible to do by sneaking around, and then it turns out my roomie had an easier time by just bashing her way through. This in a freaking thief-themed game. But then again, Sly Cooper's really disappointing in that it's basically an action platformer of a type I don't even like with a thin layer of thief theme laid on top, rather than a proper thief-themed game.
Mercenaries, on the other hand, I enjoyed greatly. Sure, it's combat-oriented and there aren't any options to advance the story other than by combat, but stealthy assassination is a viable combat system. I had tons of fun scouting and then working out cunning ways to pick off all obstacles to my goal of capturing every named villain for the bounty. And most importantly, I could play the whole game this way. At times I failed at stealth and had to just gun my way out, but this felt more like a natural consequence of plans going wrong than forced game decisions. And stealth still did its part in getting me close to the target. It never was arbitrarily useless. Overall, I had more of a blast with the game than the previously mentioned. Games. But then again, this was basically a sandbox war action game.