Game mechanics you hate for any reason

AI enemies that can one-shot you from a distance with a generic assault rifle. Looking at you, CoD DMZ mode

We need an opposite thread for this discussion, for games with mechanics you like. For example, the Catch-up screen on Dragon Quest 11. You can put that game down for a few months and still know what is going on, where you are and what you were trying to do. Not enough RPGs do this.

In a very broad general sense Im gonna say loot based gear with passive skill upgrades that change fuck all about how you play. Specificially using Dying Light 2's weapon/armor skills and rarity as an example. Like other games of its type, getting better gear for your character based off its rarity can give passive upgrades to your characters stats. My gripe with it is when games decide to reward you with wonderful stats like "5% damage increase". Stat upgrades so miniscule it makes little difference to how you play the game. If it still takes me say 5 hits to kill something with thr skill enabled, what's the point?

DL2 takes it further by offering stat upgrades so miniscule it's pathetic. 3.2% increase to striking damage. 2.7% protection against electric. And this is on rare gear. I had a rare chest piece that's like 1.6% piercing damage and 1.9% fire damage. I think get the legendary version of the same armor, the highest rarity there is. And I get the same stats...1.9% piercing damage and a reduction in fire damage to 1.7%. It's pathetic, feels so badly thought out and doesn't need to be in the game at all, nothing in the game merits the effort to put into it. If a game is going to do this, the upgrades need to be substantial enough to notice the difference.

I'd considered a companion thread several times but this is it. People love a moan

Give it a go!

Back in the NES days, when most games were 1-2 hour playthroughs at best, replayability was absolutely essential for a good game, and developers, players and journalists paid great attention to that. With time, as games got longer and longer, I think it became less of a priority but usually was still paid attention to.

Nowadays though, many think of games as one-and-done, and if a game is good value is determined by how many hours you get in a single playthrough. But what that means is that many developers just water their games down so that reviewers can tell players that a game gives you 50 or 100 hours of content. What people tend to forget is that 50 watered down hours is worse value than 10 great hours that you play 5 times.

An extreme example of the opposite is one of my favourite games of recent years, Mega Man 11. Once you're good enough, that's a one-hour playthrough, but despite (because?) being so oldschool it was a breath of fresh air in the modern gaming landscape. It's short but very condensed and refined, with no filler or padding whatsoever. It just goes bam bam bam and doesn't waste your time, and so I've played through many dozen times and every time it was a blast from start to finish.

I think it's a great example of how limitation can breed creativity and greatness. A related issue is that if devs have no limitations, they often resort to throwing in any idea that they can think of, even if many of them aren't great and end up being a waste of time. If you don't have the space to throw all that in, you have to make tough decisions about what to leave out and what to keep in, and if the right decisions are made, the game will only have the good ideas. In a game as radically short as Mega Man 11 (but made with great care by expert game designers), the selection process allowed only for the best to stay in, and that's why it's such a no-nonsense thrill.

How long a game lasts really isn't a great metric.

It doesn't even necessarily need to be replayable to be a good game.

I think of Limbo and Inside. I've only really played each once, but those games stuck with me immensely, due to the amazing art and design.

Then there's something like AC Valhalla, which I didn't even dislike, but I got bored nowhere near finishing it. I have less visceral memories of that despite playing it more recently.

But lots of games have too bloat. Even something like The Witcher 3, which I'm currently replaying and enjoying a lot- the main quest has some great moments and there's some good side quests, but frankly the contracts are usually not all that exciting.

I really like the design philosophy of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. Very stripped back.

Thinking about annoying button choices, have we done 'Whenever the run or jump button is mapped to R3 or L3'?

Worse for me is L3+R3 trigger photo mode, which can disrupt the action in the heat of combat. Just make it an option in the pause menu.

Having to run a lot in a game, but having no toggle option. I eventually made an Autohotkey to reverse Shift and CapsLock entirely because it's more convenient over time.

Glad it's not just me. If I'm pushing the stick forward to move, I just find then also having to press it down to trigger the click fiddly and unpleasant.

I'm not really sure what I'd want the R3 and L3 buttons to so, actually. A map, maybe. Photo mode? Certainly nothing involving actual control, and not when the stick is 'in use'.

I don't think I've used the L3+R3 combo in any game. That sort of move I'd assume would make all the buttons pop off like a clown car.

God of War 3 used it and it was quite something

The single save file on BotW can fucking do one.

I can't be fucked with that, youngling.