Worst ideas for a video game that you've played?

So many tacked on multiplayers that ruin games.

So many tacked on multiplayers that ruin games.

 

crimsonman1245

Both games are for the PS2 and both were surprisingly NOT terrible games either...

A Dogs Life: You walked around peeing on things and living the life of a dog

Mr Mosquito: you play as a mosquito flying around trying to suck blood from people and not get smashed

Two terrible ideas that were surprisingly somewhat enjoyable.

Unnecessary implementation of multiplayer and co-op. Games should always focus on single player.

Having a campaign in Battlefield 3.

Vehicle health regen - Any combat games.

The desmond sequences in AC:R.

I couldn't do any beyond the first. So boring.

Letting you play MGS2 as snake for half an hour and then suddenly switching to RaidenBlack_Knight_00

[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"]

So many tacked on multiplayers that ruin games.

 

DarthJohnova

Cooking Mama multiplayer. I can't think of much that's worse than having a carrot peeling contest with your friends. Also, "Action Bass" for ps1 was pretty bad...

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Letting you play MGS2 as snake for half an hour and then suddenly switching to Raidencapaho

Aw, I liked Catwoman.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Letting you play MGS2 as snake for half an hour and then suddenly switching to Raidencapaho

99.9% of motion controls. 

Heavy Rain. A game about a psychotic child abductor with a control scheme that appears to have been developed by a psychotic child abductor. What were they thinking?capaho

Luckily I didn't have that DLC, so I only used Batman thoughout the whole game. From what I hear I didn't miss much.Black_Knight_00

The Catwoman segments were actually fun, the problem is that I hate character switching.  It kills the virtual reality aspect of the game for me.  I'd like to meet the idiot that came up with the concept of character switching and thought it was a good idea.  It destroys the integrity of the game.

A Dogs Life: You walked around peeing on things and living the life of a dogApocalypse324

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Luckily I didn't have that DLC, so I only used Batman thoughout the whole game. From what I hear I didn't miss much.capaho

The Catwoman segments were actually fun, the problem is that I hate character switching.  It kills the virtual reality aspect of the game for me.  I'd like to meet the idiot that came up with the concept of character switching and thought it was a good idea.  It destroys the integrity of the game.

[QUOTE="Apocalypse324"]

A Dogs Life: You walked around peeing on things and living the life of a dogJimmiCottam

Brink.

Well...it's idea was a good one I guess it was just the execution was f*cking atrocious.

Something tells me you're going to hate GTA V thenBlack_Knight_00

If what I've read about character switching in GTA V is true, it will definitely diminsh the value of the game for me.  I hope GTA V doesn't turn out to be another Rockstar debacle like L.A. Noire and Max Payne.  If it does, that means the Rockstar of old is truly gone.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Something tells me you're going to hate GTA V thencapaho

If what I've read about character switching in GTA V is true, it will definitely diminsh the value of the game for me.  I hope GTA V doesn't turn out to be another Rockstar debacle like L.A. Noire and Max Payne.  If it does, that means the Rockstar of old is truly gone.

Lol, honestly I wouldn't hold my breath expecting GTAV to be the grand finale of this gen. It does look to be way better than it's disappointing predecessor. But actual gameplay footage and minor spoiler vids will never steer you wrong. Rockstar would have been better off allowing character custimazation and using genric male / female voices like in Mass Effect instead of constant character switching.

Both games are for the PS2 and both were surprisingly NOT terrible games either...

A Dogs Life: You walked around peeing on things and living the life of a dog

Mr Mosquito: you play as a mosquito flying around trying to suck blood from people and not get smashed

Two terrible ideas that were surprisingly somewhat enjoyable.

Apocalypse324

Neither of those ideas sound terrible.

Games should always focus on single player.

Venom_Raptor

That's stupid and narrowminded.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Luckily I didn't have that DLC, so I only used Batman thoughout the whole game. From what I hear I didn't miss much.capaho

The Catwoman segments were actually fun, the problem is that I hate character switching.  It kills the virtual reality aspect of the game for me.  I'd like to meet the idiot that came up with the concept of character switching and thought it was a good idea.  It destroys the integrity of the game.

Your reasoning is completely nonsensical.

Lol, honestly I wouldn't hold my breath expecting GTAV to be the grand finale of this gen. It does look to be way better than it's disappointing predecessor. But actual gameplay footage and minor spoiler vids will never steer you wrong. Rockstar would have been better off allowing character custimazation and using genric male / female voices like in Mass Effect instead of constant character switching.

HipHopBeats

I agree, allowing for character customization and sticking with that character throughout the game makes the most sense from the gamer's perspective.  I suspect this new trend toward character switching is being driven by development costs, thus is cheaper for the developer to switch characters than to provide a campaign long enough for a single, customized character along the lines of the Mass Effect or Fallout series.

The GoY edition of Batman: Arkham City forces you to switch from Batman to Catwoman a couple of times first, then allows you to switch back and forth at your own choosing.  If you start as Batman and focus only on the main missions, the campaign is rather short, leaving you with just the side missions and Catwoman sequences.  I suppose that forcing you to switch to a couple of Catwman interludes gives the illusion of prolonging the campaign.  It seems to me that it would have made more sense to give you the option of choosing Batman or Catwoman and playing through as one of those characters before replaying the game as the other.

As far as GTA V goes, despite my disdain for character switching, I'll likely still buy it as long as the overall game is decent and the user reviews are good.  In my view, GTA IV is an all-time classic.  I suspect the character switching in GTA V will be something along the lines of Episodes from Liberty City, where you play through some of the overlapping GTA IV missions from the perspective of either Johnny Klebitz or Gay Tony, depending on which episode you're playing.  I hope they don't skewer up the GTA series with GTA V.

[QUOTE="capaho"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Luckily I didn't have that DLC, so I only used Batman thoughout the whole game. From what I hear I didn't miss much.Pffrbt

The Catwoman segments were actually fun, the problem is that I hate character switching.  It kills the virtual reality aspect of the game for me.  I'd like to meet the idiot that came up with the concept of character switching and thought it was a good idea.  It destroys the integrity of the game.

Your reasoning is completely nonsensical.

How so?

[QUOTE="Pffrbt"]

[QUOTE="capaho"]

The Catwoman segments were actually fun, the problem is that I hate character switching.  It kills the virtual reality aspect of the game for me.  I'd like to meet the idiot that came up with the concept of character switching and thought it was a good idea.  It destroys the integrity of the game.

capaho

Your reasoning is completely nonsensical.

How so?

Because there's no virtual reality aspect to kill, and even if there was then occasionally switching your character isn't making the game any less realistic than the fact you're controlling everything with a controller and you are not actually the character. If you're talking about getting into a game and feeling invested, switching your character isn't affecting anything. And what the hell are you even talking about with the integrity of the game. Switching your character hurts nothing unless the character you switching to is garbage.

Having a campaign in Battlefield 3.

speedfreak48t5p

Because there's no virtual reality aspect to kill, and even if there was then occasionally switching your character isn't making the game any less realistic than the fact you're controlling everything with a controller and you are not actually the character. If you're talking about getting into a game and feeling invested, switching your character isn't affecting anything. And what the hell are you even talking about with the integrity of the game. Switching your character hurts nothing unless the character you switching to is garbage.

Pffrbt

I take it your thinking is rather concrete.  The virtual reality indulgence of a game for me comes from taking on the persona of the protaganist or anti-hero, depending on the tenor of the game, within the game's context and virtual environment.  Jumping characters breaks the persona aspect of the virtual relaity experience, and that breaks the virtual reality experience for me entirely.  If I want a collection of short stories, I'd rather read a book.

adding online multiplayer to certain great single player titles

Jumping characters breaks the persona aspect of the virtual relaity experience
How difficult could it possibly be to become invested in multiple characters.
and that breaks the virtual reality experience for me entirely.
How incredibly petty.
If I want a collection of short stories, I'd rather read a book.capaho

How is it a collection of short stories if it's one story told from multiple perspectives.

How is it a collection of short stories if it's one story told from multiple perspectives.

Pffrbt

It's not possible to have a single story from events that are described from multiple perspectives.  Each perspective has its own story.  I enjoyed Episodes from Liberty City but the perspective episodes that overlapped with GTA IV were just the same events rehashed with a different spin.  That's a lot different than having a variety of content to sustain a longer campaign.  It's a gimmick to make a short campaign appear longer than it really is.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Something tells me you're going to hate GTA V thencapaho

If what I've read about character switching in GTA V is true, it will definitely diminsh the value of the game for me.  I hope GTA V doesn't turn out to be another Rockstar debacle like L.A. Noire and Max Payne.  If it does, that means the Rockstar of old is truly gone.

• Tacked on multiplayer
• Motion controls. All of them
• Lack of a manual save feature (Condemned 2, Bioshock: Infinite)
• Illogical control schemes
• Pointless 'romance' dialogue options (ie Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age)
• Pay to win structure

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Lol, honestly I wouldn't hold my breath expecting GTAV to be the grand finale of this gen. It does look to be way better than it's disappointing predecessor. But actual gameplay footage and minor spoiler vids will never steer you wrong. Rockstar would have been better off allowing character custimazation and using genric male / female voices like in Mass Effect instead of constant character switching.

capaho

I agree, allowing for character customization and sticking with that character throughout the game makes the most sense from the gamer's perspective.  I suspect this new trend toward character switching is being driven by development costs, thus is cheaper for the developer to switch characters than to provide a campaign long enough for a single, customized character along the lines of the Mass Effect or Fallout series.

The GoY edition of Batman: Arkham City forces you to switch from Batman to Catwoman a couple of times first, then allows you to switch back and forth at your own choosing.  If you start as Batman and focus only on the main missions, the campaign is rather short, leaving you with just the side missions and Catwoman sequences.  I suppose that forcing you to switch to a couple of Catwman interludes gives the illusion of prolonging the campaign.  It seems to me that it would have made more sense to give you the option of choosing Batman or Catwoman and playing through as one of those characters before replaying the game as the other.

As far as GTA V goes, despite my disdain for character switching, I'll likely still buy it as long as the overall game is decent and the user reviews are good.  In my view, GTA IV is an all-time classic.  I suspect the character switching in GTA V will be something along the lines of Episodes from Liberty City, where you play through some of the overlapping GTA IV missions from the perspective of either Johnny Klebitz or Gay Tony, depending on which episode you're playing.  I hope they don't skewer up the GTA series with GTA V.

Character switching definitely takes away from the immersion. It looks like the 3 protagonists will rally up at certain points allowing you to decide which character you want to use for whatever heist they have planned. I'm sure people will have their favorite protagonists and some may even hate playing as a certain character. Sort of like a Tarantino flick where you see the same story from different perspectives. In the end, it's all padding to make the game seem longer. It could work but nothing beats either a solid single character or custimazation. If the actual gameplay is good, I'll buy it once all DLC's are out.

L.A. Noire and Max Payne 3 are both excellent games.Black_Knight_00

Of course, I was speaking only for myself.  

I know L.A. Noire has its fans, but it was just too broken for me to be able to enjoy it, particularly the idiotic driving physics that resulted in a shrub or a picket fence stopping a car dead in its tracks.  Combine that with an open world in which there was almost nothing to do, passersby who didn't react to your presence, the same background sounds everywhere (like pigeons cooing and the sounds of people playing ping pong inside of buildings), and the overhyped interrogation system that you weren't able to use on the guilty party during the serial killer investigation because you never had him in custody (definitiley one of the worst ideas for a video game), and it all added up to little more than nonsense.  

By the time I encountered the illogical character switch in L.A. Noire it had already become so laughably bad that I just didn't care anymore.  The convoluted pursuit of the arsonist at the end of the game resulted in just a cut scene ending rather than a grand finale shootout.  D'oh!  It's a pity that its development was so badly bungled that its potential was never realized.  It could have been an epic game rather than an epic disappointment.

As for Max Payne, another game that has its fans, it wasn't much more than a headache on a disc for me.  It was too linear for my taste and the shootouts were just too repetitive.  Also, I just can't get into games that are as devoid of humor or satire as this one.  The only game I've ever played that was more morbidly unpleasant than Max Payne was the awful Heavy Rain.

Character switching definitely takes away from the immersion. It looks like the 3 protagonists will rally up at certain points allowing you to decide which character you want to use for whatever heist they have planned. I'm sure people will have their favorite protagonists and some may even hate playing as a certain character. Sort of like a Tarantino flick where you see the same story from different perspectives. In the end, it's all padding to make the game seem longer. It could work but nothing beats either a solid single character or custimazation. If the actual gameplay is good, I'll buy it once all DLC's are out.

HipHopBeats

I will buy it too, if the gameplay appears to be decent and the user reviews are good.  I don't like character switching, but if it's as you describe and the overall game quality is good, it shouldn't be too big of a distraction.