Gaming Mechanics

[Mercen-X]

Which ones do you like/hate? Which ones screw you over?

How about sudden changes in controller function? Like when you're hit with some confusion/dizzy spell in an action game and your characters starts walking in the opposite direction or just hella wobbly. Is that a decent mechanic? Could be it be made better if the directional controls were not the only controls affected? Would it piss you off if "confusion" threw all of the controls out of whack?

Anything else you can think of ?

[Bolivar]

Oh man, this is a real broad topic, I feel like we could go on for days about anything in this...

I'm not sure how I feel about the regenerative health in shooters mechanic. It's unrealistic but it's more ideal than punishing you for starting check points for low health. But probably the best shooter I last played was FEAR 2. That game hardly had any regeneration. Only a little, I think. Resistance 1 was similar, and I think combining regenerative health alongside health/armor packs is probably the sweet spot, the best way to go.

Quick Time Events is another controversial one. I'm glad to say this mechanic was one of the "fads" of the current generation, that it's almost died out. It was funny to realize how long Battlefield 3 had been in development, to see a bunch of quick time events in there, something which wasn't even in the (excellent) Bad Company games. I like quick time in God of War, but I don't think I like it hardly elsewhere.

Dealing with the OP's original, I think making you walk off is fine. It's annoying, but it's a part of the game, and something most titles let you use back on your enemies if you're spec'd right. I think throwing controls out of wack would be cool! Especially if you could figure out how the controls have been mixed, which represents you slowly coming back to control...

[Quindiana Jones]

Push the left stick forward slightly to walk, push it forward fully to run. This is the only part of a controller that should be used for character movement, Rockstar.

Also, up should be relevant to the direction of the thumbstick, not the direction of the character/map/Mercury's rotation around Jupiter.

[Jowy]

Ramblin' Evil Mushroom scattered some spores!
Ness is feeling funky...

RESET

Having to get drunk in SaGa Frontier to nab the Grail Card is a total pain the ass too. Really just hate when I can't walk straight.

[Formalhaut]

The only gaming mechanic I loathe was FFXIIs. And it wasn't the controls though that got me, it was the internal mechanics, like spawn chances, treasure ratios and all that malarky. It was so confusing..

[krissy]

escort missions

[Jowy]

i knocked out EE and dragged her unconscious body through the cockroaches because it was faster!

[Heath]

I think Cid Pollendina is probably my favourite gaming mechanic. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121018023359/finalfantasy/images/b/b1/Cid-SNES-FieldSprite.gif

[Mercen-X]

Hilarious

Also, up should be relevant to the direction of the thumbstick, not the direction of the character/map/Mercury's rotation around Jupiter.So then if the character is facing you, pushing up on the stick should make the character approach... you..? I think I've seen that in a few games. One with dragons (Baldur's Gate?): the main chick moved for with up, backward with down, side to side with left and right, and you had to use the shoulder buttons to get her to turn around. It was kind of annoying. I kind of like the Darksiders method by which you switch to a focused perspective so when you press down, you walk backwards, but in the normal perspective, pressing down just makes the character approach you.

GoW was mentioned, I'm gambling that QTEs refer to those moments when predetermined sequence of events requires interaction from the player. I've only seen one other game which used this mechanic to cite as an example but I found it pretty impressive: Asura. Sleeping Dogs sort of does it though it's sort of wandering away from the point.

[blackmage_nuke]

As has been said, character based directional movement rather than camera based screws me up, as does character based switching between first/third person (but only on games without fxed cameras).

I quite like it when they reverse your controls for confusion statuses, its a somewhat quirky gameplay mechanic.

I dont like scaled enemies based on your levels. I shouldnt be punished for grinding! (I couldnt finish the second disk on my first playthrough of FFVIII due to how much I ground(grinded?))

[Mirage]

i knocked out EE and dragged her unconscious body through the cockroaches because it was faster!

I did this on every playthrough until the last one I did on the HD edition.

Anyway, I like automatically regenerating health, but I'm not sure if I think this "near instant regeneration to full" once you take cover is cool. It just seems... too easymode. I like how it was in MGS2 for example, where you regenerate up to 20% or so of your health by lying still, but not all of the health. I guess it works better in that game because the game is built around not being spotted in the first place, so 20% health gets you a long way.

It is also fine if it is implemented through shields or things like that, where you have a shield that regenerates, but if it goes down and you take real damage, that damage doesn't automatically regenerate. That way, it sort of makes sense in the context of the game's universe.

I think a too strong focus on cover based gameplay in TPS games is boring. Taking cover is realistic and makes sense, sure, but it shouldn't always be the only way to do things, and it gets pretty boring when you basically have a button combination that automatically moves you from one cover to the next with near 0% chance of being hit by enemy fire during the cover changes.

I've never actually come across a game where going "dizzy" swaps your controls around, but that actually does sound pretty fun. It penalizes you, but still allows the good and adaptable players to reduce the penalty by practicing and just being better.

I dislike it when games do not improve your sniper rifle's aim when you lie down. I also don't get why you can't get bipods for sniper rifles to use when you lie down. Also, why the hell can't I use solid objects such as guard rails to improve my aim when shooting from a standing position? That's just dumb.

Yes. I have been playing MGS2 and I am pissed off over having to chew half a ton of pentazemin to get anything even resembling decent aim when using the PSG1.

Monsters leveling up with you is kind of dumb, as it sort of ruins the entire point of having levels. In FF8's case though, your strength isn't from levels anyway, but from junctioning, so it doesn't matter a whole lot.

[Heath]

Oh man, this is a real broad topic, I feel like we could go on for days about anything in this...

I'm not sure how I feel about the regenerative health in shooters mechanic. It's unrealistic but it's more ideal than punishing you for starting check points for low health. But probably the best shooter I last played was FEAR 2. That game hardly had any regeneration. Only a little, I think. Resistance 1 was similar, and I think combining regenerative health alongside health/armor packs is probably the sweet spot, the best way to go.

I think it depends on the game mode for my money. I'm not a huge fan of it in single player, but I think it makes things quite fun in multiplayer. I think it encourages you to go a bit more all out. Having said that, there are times when I've been playing Mass Effect and have been quite thankful for it.

One thing that bugs me is a limited inventory. I'm the sort of person who likes to hoard stuff I'm never going to use. I don't care how unrealistic it is that I want to carry about fifteen rocket launchers at once. I've gotten used to it, but I'm still not a fan. I don't mind in the likes of Fallout, but it really annoys me in RPGs.

[Mercen-X]

Dizzy hitters occur in Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil, I know that much.

Here's another that bugged me back in my NGC days.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/020126_1332.png

[Skyblade]

I'd been wanting to make this post for a while, yet was hesitating to make an entire thread about it. So, hijack time.

Rune Factory 3 has one of the best skill setups I've seen in an RPG. Skyrim has one of the worst (please note, this is my opinion, based on how myself and the people I know have played and assessed the game, and I will explain it in great detail, so just stay with me, and be nice). The interesting thing, is that, at first glance, the systems the games use are nearly identical. They both have progressive levelling of a number of skills regarding to a wide range of activity, each of which progresses independently of the others, yet each of which also strengthens your overall character as it progresses.

So I'd like to analyze why Rune Factory 3 succeeds where Skyrim fails so spectacularly.

First, I'll explain in brief my problem with Skyrim's system. Largely, it is thus: In Skyrim, you don't level through progression, you level by setting out to level. You spend ten or fifteen minutes grinding a skill, then go out into the world to quest and do things. The levelling system isn't natural.

As to how RF3 avoids this same problem, well, lets take a look at the skills themselves. Skyrim has its familiar eighteen.

Alteration
Archery
Alchemy
Conjuration
Block
Light Armor
Destruction
Heavy Armor
Lockpicking
Enchanting
One-handed
Pickpocket
Illusion
Smithing
Sneak
Restoration
Two-handed
Speech

Rune Factory, on the other hand, has 32. Or, at least, that's how many I've discovered so far, since it doesn't tell you a skill exists until you've at least started to level it. I don't think I'm missing any, but I'm not positive.

Shortsword
Longsword
Spear
Axes & Hammer
Dual Blade
Brawling
Fire Skill
Water Skill
Earth Skill
Wind Skill
Light Skill
Dark Skill
Love Skill
Farming
Logging
Mining
Fishing
Cooking
Forging
Mixing
Crafting
Searching
Walking
Sleeping
Eating
Defense
Poison Resist
Seal Resist
Paralyze Resist
Sleep Resist
Fatigue Resist
Cold Resist

So, there's the lists. And, yeah, Rune Factory has nearly twice as many. This is the first important difference between the two.

The next major difference is the rate at which skills progress. Skills progress very, very quickly in Skyrim. You can max a skill in fifteen to thirty minutes of use. The result of this is that the skills you actually use, your bread-and-butter combat skills, get maxed very, very quickly, and then stop once they hit the max level cap. Thus forcing you to grind different skills to continue progression.

RF3, on the other hand, has very, very slow skill progression. They start out levelling very quick, but each level takes longer than the last, and this time ramps up quick. By the end of an entire game, you probably won't have maxed any skills, even the ones you use all the time, or the ones you grind for. Ending with 50 to 70 in your main combat skill is not all that unusual. This keeps progression moving constantly throughout the game, without forcing you to grind.


However, while we're discussing the grind, let's look back at our lists for a moment. Notice that RF3's includes a lot of secondary activities. While Skyrim focuses mainly on combat, magic, and crafting, RF3 includes such activities as Sleeping, Walking, and Eating, among a bunch of extras like status resistances. Why are these important? For the same reason as the slower progression. By having so many that progress through standard daily activities, or the status resistances (which involve getting hit by the status ailment to level them), which you'll encounter but are nearly impossible to grind, they ensure a constant rate of skill progression. With so many spread out so much, they're all going to be at differing rates of progression. The first time you encounter an enemy who poisons you, you'll start to gain a new skill, which, being new, levels very quickly. Thus, again, keeping the progression going so you're not frustrated at being stuck, nor are you having to grind to go forward. Through most of the game, you'll always have something you're levelling.


Another important thing to note is experience and Levels. Well, Skyrim doesn't have them. Your levelling is directly related to your skills. This ties back to Skyrim's main problem, that your primary skills level incredibly quickly, and then leave you with no way to progress without working on skills you otherwise wouldn't use, and you tend to just grind those to level, rather than actually levelling as you quest and play the game.

RF3, however, gives you an experience bar and levels as well. As you kill enemies, you level up as per usual in an RPG. This, again, gives you another means of progression, and keeps you feeling like you're constantly moving forward, regardless of what you're doing. It also has an utterly insane level cap of 10,000, so, yeah, not going to hit that anytime soon. Heck, most won't ever. In fact, level 70 or so is easily enough to finish the main game.



And, as a final note, farming. Farming is where the Rune Factory series got its roots, since it evolved out of the Harvest Moon series, and they did a phenomenal job of joining this into the skill system. In addition to its own, farming based skills (farming, mining, logging, etcetera), they also decided to loosely tie farming to all your skills, through Rune Crystals, Runeys, and the Pharmacy. Any time you harvest a crop, you have a chance of obtaining a Rune Crystal or Runey. Both replenish your RP a bit, but they have the even more important side effect of increasing your skill level in a skill (for Rune Crystals), or your stats (for Runeys). This means that you have a secondary way to increase your skills, and another way to keep your stats moving up. It also can help with the higher level skills, as a Rune Crystal will always level up one of your skills (although, if you already have one at 99, it can level that one up, which means it gives you no benefit. Completely random allocation), so even the slow levelling higher skills can get a boost from a Rune Crystal. This gives you an incentive to keep farming, which also keeps you a wide range of skills naturally levelling, and helps keep the game close to its roots.


Overall, the levelling process is just a more natural, and more steady progression. It takes the same system, but is really devoted to making it a system that works for every playstyle, and works to keep it steady and fun for the entire game.

[Pete for President]

Ahh Quick Time Events, I despise them. They are an insult to gamers. Here's why: quick time events are there to feed you eye candy and nothing else. You're either not good enough to pull these moves off with the normal gameplay controls, or the developers think you definitely prefer eye-candy over self-controlled moves, so now they'll make you do some badass moves while solving a color and shape input puzzle like you did in kindergarten. It's just not real gameplay and totally breaks a games' immersion factor. It's eye candy and nothing else. Only ignorant gamers will fall for this trick.

Related to gaming mechanics; I have a problem with cutscenes in which promises are made that are not met in actual gameplay. I'm looking at you MGS3 and 4, though a ton of games are guilty of this. Take this example from MGS3: Snake gets surrounded by a special forces unit. Snake, being legendary as he is, uses only grapple techniques and some quickdraw shooting to take out 6 soldiers in a very short time. Apparently he has insane skill. Now let's try that with the actual gameplay mechanics; it's impossible. Yes you can grapple guards, use them as a human shield and shoot other goons, but that's just a fraction of the moves even those are not nearly as smooth as the cutscenes show. In the hand of a player, Snake isn't nearly as legendary as he is presented. So don't give me fake promises, cutscenes!

[Skyblade]

Ahh Quick Time Events, I despise them. They are an insult to gamers. Here's why: quick time events are there to feed you eye candy and nothing else. You're either not good enough to pull these moves off with the normal gameplay controls, or the developers think you definitely prefer eye-candy over self-controlled moves, so now they'll make you do some badass moves while solving a color and shape input puzzle like you did in kindergarten. It's just not real gameplay and totally breaks a games' immersion factor. It's eye candy and nothing else. Only ignorant gamers will fall for this trick.

It's not even that, though. In most games with QTEs, you can't even enjoy the eye-candy (as you can with most cutscenes), because you have to focus and watch for the QTE indicators. If you are busy enjoying the cutscene, well, you'll be unprepared when that square pops up and gives you a half second to press it. Perhaps the gamers with the best reflexes can watch the scene, but no one else. It makes the entire cutscene pointless.

[Mercen-X]

Yes, by far the best automatic attacks are finishers like those in Darksiders, and timed attacks that only use a single button so that once you've practiced in what they're sure to give you as a tutorial, you'd pretty much be the only one to blame if you couldn't pull off the move while enjoying the scene at the same time.

Personally, I've been able to enjoy quite a few of these. Of course, I'm able to dual-attend to whatever I'm interested in such as watching a show while reading its subtitles. My mom complains that this doesn't apply to listening to a world outside my attended medium because well, I'm not interested in what you have to say at the moment in case you couldn't tell lady!

[Henry Pease]

Well for me it is Cid Pollendina whose gaming mechanics is just awesome as far as I think.