Terrible classic-era game ideas that should be forgotten

[Flojomojo]

[With apologies to zzip for stealing and flipping his topic]

 

What moldy old game concepts do you wish would go away?

 

I'll start:

 

Pay per play, limited lives, "game over."

This was how most of us started out with video games. We would insert a coin and play until we "died." When home consoles came along, they were their own thing at first, with a timed game (Combat's 2:16 of shooting action) or a win state. Later on, arcade ports aped the arcade style, complete with limited tries and a "game over" screen. That was exciting at first, like having your favorite arcade games at home! I'm gratified to know that the upcoming Mario Odyssey will not have any of this stuff.

 

Random encounters in RPGs.

You want to level up, and you want there to be some risk in trekking off the beaten path. You DON'T want to get interrupted by stupid $hit so often that you forget the direction you were traveling. Ugh.

 

Password saves.

Better than nothing, I guess. Glad they're irrelevant now.

 

Games so short you don't need a pause button.

Wasn't it nice when the first consoles with pause functionality came along? It's nice to be able to answer the call of nature. Please note that I don't mind difficult games that kill you in seconds, like Super Hexagon or Steppy Pants. In fact, I like Steppy Pants a lot more than anyone should. I just don't think the lack of pause functionality should dictate game design. I'm looking at you, Odyssey 2 Challenger Series.

 

Inscrutable, abstract games that are unplayable without the manual.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T the Extraterrestrial, Riddle of the Sphinx, SwordQuest, The Great Wall Street Fortune Hunt, plenty of others. Replaced today by the irritatingly hand-holding tutorial that could really use a "have you ever played a game like this before?" button.

[Tanooki]

Obtuse (sometimes as best obtuse) rules to figure out how to navigate or work a room to either not die or move onto the next. This would apply to the classic Shadowgate and friends from KEMCO to the more modern telltale throwbacks to the old Sam & Max games where there often was no rhyme, reason, or logic behind what the hell to do just to move along.

 

I was going to throw RPGs under the bus with random abuse encounters but you got that along with insane passwords.

 

How about a game that just has you stare at it for minutes or hours because it wants you do to something, but it never actually tells you, or worse if you pass through some area with a lot of random gibberish spewing AI creatures and one happens to not so much tell but vaguely elude to something. Then when you finally do it, an invisible wall of all things drops and you can walk further...argh.

 

I do not agree with removing the old GAME OVER, that's motivation enough to keep going and get better instead of pussyfooting your way to the next checkpoint or abusing a save anywhere mechanic(ie: Doom, etc through Call of Duty and friends) to basically do the same (as people do with save/load states now in emulators.)

[zzip]

copy protection schemes that were annoying to legit users-

 

1. Protected disks that couldn't be installed to hard drive

2. Manual copy protection- "Enter the 22nd word on page 49 of the manual"- of course you probably lost the manual, didn't you?

3. Dongle protection

edit: 4. Games that install to the HD but still need the disk inserted for copy protection reasons.

 

 

Disk Flipping RPGs

Edited July 25, 2017 by zzip

[Flojomojo]

I do not agree with removing the old GAME OVER, that's motivation enough to keep going and get better instead of pussyfooting your way to the next checkpoint or abusing a save anywhere mechanic(ie: Doom, etc through Call of Duty and friends) to basically do the same (as people do with save/load states now in emulators.)

That's preferable to replaying the same early parts of a level over and over again, just to die at the hard part. Every time I get sent back to the beginning, I lose a big chunk of motivation to try again.

 

[VectorGamer]

Pay per play, limited lives, "game over."

This was how most of us started out with video games. We would insert a coin and play until we "died." When home consoles came along, they were their own thing at first, with a timed game (Combat's 2:16 of shooting action) or a win state. Later on, arcade ports aped the arcade style, complete with limited tries and a "game over" screen. That was exciting at first, like having your favorite arcade games at home! I'm gratified to know that the upcoming Mario Odyssey will not have any of this stuff.

 

Inscrutable, abstract games that are unplayable without the manual.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T the Extraterrestrial, Riddle of the Sphinx, SwordQuest, The Great Wall Street Fortune Hunt, plenty of others. Replaced today by the irritatingly hand-holding tutorial that could really use a "have you ever played a game like this before?" button.

 

How is 3 or 5 lives and you're done a bad thing?

 

I don't play games where I have to RTFM.

 

[phoenixdownita]

Crates.

[+Cafeman]

Superhero games where you only use your powers as a smart bomb , in very limited fashion. Also, kryptonite bullets.

[phoenixdownita]

Rubber band AI in racing games.

 

Designated 2nd in racing games (if you don't win the race he will).

[+save2600]

'Up' for jump. Lost count as to how many computer (looking at you Amiga) platform games are ruined because of this.

 

Abstract icons with no text in, under or around them. And no pop-up text when you hover the pointer over one.

 

Hmmm... having a tough time trying to think of other things, besides some that have already been mentioned, that I don't like about classic gaming. All of the annoyances of modern gaming keep distracting and popping into my head. lol

[Tanooki]

That's preferable to replaying the same early parts of a level over and over again, just to die at the hard part. Every time I get sent back to the beginning, I lose a big chunk of motivation to try again.

 

I don't want to go back to Lv1 either, but that's the really old stuff or the intentionally sadist. Plenty enough would have a mid-level checkpoint, or you just replay that stage, or set of stages on a mid 'world' checkpoint. That's entirely fair as it teaches you to get better with some consequences for not learning well enough. I don't have time for that go back to an hour earlier at stage one crap either. But removing 'game over' completely and leaving no consequence in a game at all for being a shitty player does no good either.

[Flojomojo]

Shitty players want to have fun, too! I should know.

[Gabriel]

 

 

Random encounters in RPGs.

You want to level up, and you want there to be some risk in trekking off the beaten path. You DON'T want to get interrupted by stupid $hit so often that you forget the direction you were traveling. Ugh.

 

 

I disagree. I'd rather have the random encounters. With the fixed/shown encounters it just means you always have an encounter in certain areas unless you want to do whatever micro-game element the game expects you to do to avoid them (running past them, hiding, etc) which just wastes time.

 

I prefer the unpredictability in random encounters. I feel it makes not only exploring more fun, but also grinding itself. It's boring to just walk back and forth between the same visible MOBS in the same locations over and over. Walking back and forth down hallways or through the same forest tiles over and over waiting for random encounters to occur can be dull, but there is a level of unpredictability to it. And it's quite a different experience being low on hit points and other resources in a random encounter game than one where all the enemies are visible with known encounter locations.

 

I've had nail biting expeditions in dungeons with random encounters, not knowing if I'd get back or not. They've been frustrating, but also extremely exciting. That just doesn't happen in the visible/non-random encounters games.

 

(edit: and holy shit it's weird to be on this side of this topic. For pen & paper RPGs I strongly dislike random encounters in dungeons. Oddly enough, for mostly the same reasons I say I like them in video game RPGs)

Edited July 25, 2017 by Gabriel

[+cvga]

I'll add a couple...

 

I'd get rid of games that forget the high scores when you turn the power off.

 

I'd also get rid of games that only have 2 player options. Sometimes no one else is around and I need the computer to be my friend!

[spacecadet]

I'd also get rid of games that only have 2 player options. Sometimes no one else is around and I need the computer to be my friend!

 

That's when you need to learn to play with yourself.

[bradhig1]

Time limits that are unrealistic and when they get down to 10 sec there is some loud annoying sound that plays every second warning you time is about to run out when you already know that by checking the clock.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Shitty players want to have fun, too! I should know.

They got tools for that.

 

A number of high profile NES games exist that I would never have had a shot in Hades of seeing the end credits were it not for this device. Even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles took my friend and I like three hours to beat with the help of a Genie.

 

I'll add a couple...

 

I'd get rid of games that forget the high scores when you turn the power off.

 

I'd also get rid of games that only have 2 player options. Sometimes no one else is around and I need the computer to be my friend!

Take a snapshot of the TV with a smartphone is the easiest way to record high scores.

 

Those two player games can be lame with no friends, which is often the case with childless adult gamers who live by themselves or with a non-gaming S.O.

 

I'll add one additional footnote:

• Cheap A.I. in a two player game is no substitute for a real human opponent and comradery.

[Tanooki]

 

I disagree. I'd rather have the random encounters. With the fixed/shown encounters it just means you always have an encounter in certain areas unless you want to do whatever micro-game element the game expects you to do to avoid them (running past them, hiding, etc) which just wastes time.

 

I prefer the unpredictability in random encounters. I feel it makes not only exploring more fun, but also grinding itself. It's boring to just walk back and forth between the same visible MOBS in the same locations over and over. Walking back and forth down hallways or through the same forest tiles over and over waiting for random encounters to occur can be dull, but there is a level of unpredictability to it. And it's quite a different experience being low on hit points and other resources in a random encounter game than one where all the enemies are visible with known encounter locations.

 

I've had nail biting expeditions in dungeons with random encounters, not knowing if I'd get back or not. They've been frustrating, but also extremely exciting. That just doesn't happen in the visible/non-random encounters games.

 

(edit: and holy shit it's weird to be on this side of this topic. For pen & paper RPGs I strongly dislike random encounters in dungeons. Oddly enough, for mostly the same reasons I say I like them in video game RPGs)

 

Not as much time as having to battle something every 5 seconds for however long it takes, plus the loss of resources. Sure you gain xp, little money, maybe an item, but it's more of a throwback problem. And rarely is it these days a fixed amount in an area, they'll repopulate so you're not really stuck with a limited amount so leveling is no different other than being on MY terms more or less. They're still entirely unpredictable as the thing walking isn't the whole party, nor does it determine how easy/hard it will be unless you can swing around and get advantage (instead of the random roll of the dice style of random encounters.) It makes exploring a bitch because you want to see what's there, then perpetually interrupted and screwed with by the same annoying crap over and over again making exploration more a chore than amusing/interesting.

 

You say it's boring walking back and forth for the same visible mobs, well you're doing the same except they're invisible and unpredictable when so that sucks as bad if not worse. It's only unpredictable not knowing when, but what's in there is just as much a crap shoot if you saw some monster wandering the map as they're never alone. I can rarely tolerate random fights anymore as they're time(and therefore life) sucking pains in the ass from a bygone era that I don't care to revisit in a modern game unless I choose to do so looking back (or for one made now intentionally advertising itself as such.)

 

 

 

Here's a dislike that still aggravatingly stays around even today -- RANK. I've hated that crap since the 90s. Often times RANK is setup by the worst peoples times, the game testers. Those who have no lives other than the play the games day in and out 5-7 days a week 8+ hours. You'll need to commit as much time as they do to get those A or S level(best) ranks, and often your first or many future play throughs will get the mediocre or less C to E ranks. And of course it's never just a stamp to mock you, you usually get your nuts kicked in losing bonuses, helpful items, 1UPs, whatever else. They're pure crap. I despise them so much I've had games I've just stopped playing cold when it appears if it's something that isn't just costume and actually withholds anything of decent or amazing value. I don't have the time, nor ever want to sink that kind of time again into a solitary game making it no longer a game but a JOB to get my ass kissed by the game with some little useful reward.

 

[dgdgagdae]

Take a snapshot of the TV with a smartphone is the easiest way to record high scores.

Or with a Polaroid, like Crabman! Edited July 26, 2017 by dgdgagdae

[CatPix]

Not as much time as having to battle something every 5 seconds for however long it takes, plus the loss of resources. Sure you gain xp, little money, maybe an item, but it's more of a throwback problem. And rarely is it these days a fixed amount in an area, they'll repopulate so you're not really stuck with a limited amount so leveling is no different other than being on MY terms more or less. They're still entirely unpredictable as the thing walking isn't the whole party, nor does it determine how easy/hard it will be unless you can swing around and get advantage (instead of the random roll of the dice style of random encounters.) It makes exploring a bitch because you want to see what's there, then perpetually interrupted and screwed with by the same annoying crap over and over again making exploration more a chore than amusing/interesting.

 

You say it's boring walking back and forth for the same visible mobs, well you're doing the same except they're invisible and unpredictable when so that sucks as bad if not worse. It's only unpredictable not knowing when, but what's in there is just as much a crap shoot if you saw some monster wandering the map as they're never alone. I can rarely tolerate random fights anymore as they're time(and therefore life) sucking pains in the ass from a bygone era that I don't care to revisit in a modern game unless I choose to do so looking back (or for one made now intentionally advertising itself as such.)

This.

 

For me , the whole JRPG system is a relic of the past that have no reason to exist anymore. I play very little JRPG because of that; the mixture of action/exploration and menu-navigating fight is a poor one.

I don't need a damn menu that ask me every time what move I want to do in Skyrim, I just do it.

 

Why is that different there? Why do you allow me to move freely in every place, why do you NOT allow me to skip those annoying empty desert plains between places, BUT, you have to nag me with a multiple choice menu for every toe I wanna flick in a fight?

 

What bothers me even more is that "invisible monster" crap. At least in Zelda II you can see the monsters and try to evade them.

Why don't you let me play? You force me to walk on foot, so please have mercy. Or just allow me to teleport between places? Why the double standard? Do everything with menus and unrealistic, or nothing, but not that awkward mess.

 

And no, I'm not a brute player that like to slam my sledgehammer in ennemy's faces. One of my preferred genres of games are point'n'click. But in poin'n'clicks, very rarely you'll be asked to do a timed event action, jump, run, etc. The game rely on your mouse inputs. And that's fine

 

On a slightly less annoying note, the level requirement. It's of course tied to that menu BS.

In Skyrim and Fallout 4, I can use my sneaking skills and use the environment to hide. And Kill a level 30 ennemy when I'm level 10. It's fun, it's dangerous. Any mistake and it's game over. But I can do it.

 

In those RPG like games? I remember playing Castlevania on GBA; at one point, I couldn't fight a boss. Why? Because I was level 11. I was lakcing maybe 100 points to get to level 12. But when you were level 11, your character simply couldn't jump high enough. You HAD to be level 12. No way to escape that. And when I killed ONE ennemy, got level 12... The boss was SUPER EASY.

Wooow, that's game design for you. From unbeatable to super easy. Just because the game programmer wrote a shitty arbitrary line of code. Don't rely on better skills, don't use your imagination, or even be rewarded because you found hidden items. Just slaps ennmies in the face and voila, easy game.

 

 

One thing that died in the 90's, and thanks goodness it did, was the race against the clock BS in racing games.

Can't reach the next flag/spot? you are booted out of the circuit. Okay, losing to the clock is fair. But at least, let me finish the race and see the track so I can improve! Where in any race in the world are drivers removed when they do a sub-par time?

Edited July 26, 2017 by CatPix

[Andromeda Stardust]

Or with a Polaroid, like Crabman!

Good luck buying non-expired film for your Polaroid.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

One thing that died in the 90's, and thanks goodness it did, was the race against the clock BS in racing games.

Can't reach the next flag/spot? you are booted out of the circuit. Okay, losing to the clock is fair. But at least, let me finish the race and see the track so I can improve! Where in any race in the world are drivers removed when they do a sub-par time?

I hated those. The clock ticks away and each checkpoint adds XX seconds. I love racing games but those clocks are super annoying. Just let me race already. And give me "items" so I can use to sabotage other players...

[+frankodragon]

In RPG's such as Final Fantasy I and the Dragon Warrior series for NES, those damn mindless townspeople that block your way especially in shops. "Get the hell out of my way!"

[mr_me]

[With apologies to zzip for stealing and flipping his topic]

 

What moldy old game concepts do you wish would go away?

 

I'll start:

 

Pay per play, limited lives, "game over."

This was how most of us started out with video games. We would insert a coin and play until we "died." When home consoles came along, they were their own thing at first, with a timed game (Combat's 2:16 of shooting action) or a win state. Later on, arcade ports aped the arcade style, complete with limited tries and a "game over" screen. That was exciting at first, like having your favorite arcade games at home! I'm gratified to know that the upcoming Mario Odyssey will not have any of this stuff.

...

 

I agree completely with this. This is how the "golden-age" arcade games were done and is what many of us are use to. The earliest arcade videogames were actually time based and if you wanted to play longer you put in more quarters. With Lunar Lander for example you bought more fuel. Than, not sure who, someone came up with the idea of unlimited play and three lives (eg. Space Invaders 1977). The kids went for it and all games copied the idea. Selecting a skill level was complicated so they just made sure games got harder and harder. I don't know about you guys but I didn't have the money to invest on building up my skills, so my games were short. At home it was a different story, once I got good enough to get a decent score I would annoyingly have to replay easier levels just to get to the challenging part where I would die from lack of practice. It becomes frustrating and I generally stop playing those games at that point. The games I went back to were those that had a winnable ending and I can choose from different skill levels to make it challenging.

 

Take Donkey Kong for example, the US version is different but the game was designed with four stages and when you finish the rivit stage you get the girl and win the game. But then it starts over again at a harder level. I would prefer if I could choose the difficulty level and the game ends after the rivits. I don't want to play forever, I'm not saving any quarters.

 

Edit:

I also don't like the idea of "lives" in these games. In shorter games with endings its not so bad. I prefer the idea of energy level for your character and hits cost you energy that slowly recovers with time.

 

I'm not sure if this is still a problem in games but I dont like games that lack randomnes, that are the same everytime; you could literally play some of these games blindfolded. Games where enemies always follow the same pattern or adventure games where the tunnels or caves or whatever are always exactly the same. A lot of these games are loaded up with content so it seems like you are getting value but there is little replay value. People "finish" the game and move on to something else.

Edited July 26, 2017 by mr_me

[zzip]

This.

 

For me , the whole JRPG system is a relic of the past that have no reason to exist anymore. I play very little JRPG because of that; the mixture of action/exploration and menu-navigating fight is a poor one.

I don't need a damn menu that ask me every time what move I want to do in Skyrim, I just do it.

 

Why is that different there? Why do you allow me to move freely in every place, why do you NOT allow me to skip those annoying empty desert plains between places, BUT, you have to nag me with a multiple choice menu for every toe I wanna flick in a fight?

Most early RPGs were attempts to bring the mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons to videogames, so they would have things like that. Then those games influenced the development of JRPGs

 

Meanwhile, as processing power evolved, western developers worked to make RPGs more action oriented, and remove things that really were just relics of a "pen, paper & dice" gaming system. But those things had become traditional in JRPGs

[CatPix]

I know it's a relic and an attempt to translate pen&paper games on video games. And it's something that survived up to Morrowind (where a physical hit on the 3D model of an ennemi was only working after a luck roll to determine if you really had touched it, THEN a roll to determine the damage done).

There are several other ideas from the past that are outrageously bad, in today's scope, but I understand that they had limitations back in the day.

Like early adventure games where you had to type every move you wanted to do. This was quickly replaced by point'n'click when mouse become available, and even before some games had a list of moves that you selected with the arrow keys. Today those games are barely tolerable, but it was a necessary evil, and I won't blame the developpers of the time to have done this.

 

I would even prefer to play a strategic RPG, where you roll dices to even MOVE. Because at least here, you know that you'll have to do everything by dice and luck.

What I would prefer would be that, with today's controllers and keyboard play, you could link an attack or a move to a button of your pad. So when you get in fight, you bring the menu ONLY if you need a specific move you rarely use. And make ennemies visibles so you CHOOSE to fight or not. And/or allow to travel between different places by bringing the map and selecting the place, like in ARPG or most point'n'clicks.

 

There are always ways to manage to keep the old ways and make your game better. After all, if you don't like an option in a game... You can always choose not use it.

I know people that play "hardcore Skyrim" : no teleport, no saves : you die, you restart the game. because the game allow you to do so. You are not forced to use the saves, you're not forced to use the map to move between places.