Crap in games that people praise, that you loath.

Same as the other thread but this time, what are some game mechanics, designs, or features that people constantly praise as "teh baest thing evah!" that have you scratching your head and wondering what magical pixie drink they must be on to get some enjoyment out of this.

To get this ball rolling...

Linear Dungeon design with no substance - By substance, I'm talking about whether the dungeon asks you to do more than just walk forward and fight enemies. I can tell you now that "looking cool" isn't substance, and I'll take a bland looking but puzzle rich dungeon over a road through a volcano where two titans are duking it out in the background. The visuals may wow for the first few minutes, but once you realize it's just background paper, the wonder is lost on me. This isn't to say I'm against linear level design overall, but some designers, mainly Squenix and EA, tend to be pretty lazy and feel their battle systems are all you need to make their pretty vistas engaging, and frankly I don't buy it.

Auto healing after battle/save points - I have never found a game to use these features and not be a bit poorer for doing so. They don't actually increase challenge, they usually do the opposite for me. It doesn't help that these games tend to use combat systems that come down to simply finding the right tactic than an actual challenge where you have to throw everything you have at it. None of this has been helped that years of item management style gameplay has taught me to show restraint so even when given the option to nuke the enemy with the big guns consequence free, I'm more likely to choose efficiency over grand standing.

Pandering in Fight Games - I don't know which bothers me more, dumbing down controls in these games to the point they do become button mashers, or building complex control schemes that only countless hours of dedication and a high end arcade stick can perform flawlessly. This used to be the genre that was the epitome of "easy to learn, difficult to master" and now I feel like that comma has been replaced with a period. I know this sounds like "how dare you not want developers to make games for just experts and novices" but my argument was that old school fighting games already did that. There is a lot of depth to Street Fighter II, which is why it still gets played today and remade constantly by Capcom, but it was also simple enough that a novice could get into it and still be competent. I'm tired of playing games where I'm either mashing one button for the auto-combo into a glorious super move or trying to memorize a twenty button input involving a counter clockwise, clockwise, counter clockwise, and seven buttons being pressed at once to perform a simple hadoken knockoff move. I feel the proper design for games is to be simple but with untold depth, not one or the other.

Moral choice systems - They would be so much better if games didn't make them so black and white. Morality is pretty subjective and when you simply relegate everything to such a black and white concept, it makes the games boring and predictable when the whole point of the mechanics is to do the opposite.

Open World/Sandbox - Man I hate what Ubisoft has done to this genre, it wouldn't be so bad if everyone didn't copy/paste it and threw in some MMO elements to add "content". While I appreciate non-linear design, I also appreciate structure and too many game designers tend to be as lazy as the Linear dungeon designers in this regard. I don't appreciate being given 20 square miles of copy/paste landscape filled with fetch quests and the same dozen mobs to fight. I don't like opening up maps by zigzagging every tower to fill in the quota, I don't like quest givers with talking bubbles and exclamation points to fill in an arbitrary list of samey quests. The scale of the world is appreciative, but loading it down with busy work just saps the fun out of exploration and the exploration would be so much cooler if the level design was actually interesting and more structured, with something to do that I know I'm not going to repeat a hundred times in the next twenty hours.

Quote:

---

Auto healing after battle/save points - I have never found a game to use these features and not be a bit poorer for doing so. They don't actually increase challenge, they usually do the opposite for me. It doesn't help that these games tend to use combat systems that come down to simply finding the right tactic than an actual challenge where you have to throw everything you have at it. None of this has been helped that years of item management style gameplay has taught me to show restraint so even when given the option to nuke the enemy with the big guns consequence free, I'm more likely to choose efficiency over grand standing.

---

It isn't intended to make it more difficult. It's intended to change what is difficult about it. And I really fail to see a distinction between "finding the right tactic" and "an actual challenge" if the right tactic is challenging.

And it sure sounds like you've played a lot of games with bad open worlds and bad "moral choice" systems, and none of the good ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

It isn't intended to make it more difficult. It's intended to change what is difficult about it. And I really fail to see a distinction between "finding the right tactic" and "an actual challenge" if the right tactic is challenging.

---

It doesn't make it challenging either way, once the tactic is figured out, it is almost always easy to implement. It's why superbosses with set patterns are more tedious than fun. Once you figure out the basic pattern you can simply counter it. The only time implementing a tactic can still be challenging is if the game utitlizes a skill based mechanic like an action game, so even knowing the pattern can still be screwed up if you skill level is poor, but in a turn based game, it's more about whether you bothered to come into the fight with the right tools. In the case of RPGs, it doesn't add challenge, it simply dumbs it down and I've yet to find a game to implement it well.

Quote:

---

And it sure sounds like you've played a lot of games with bad open worlds and bad "moral choice" systems, and none of the good ones.

---

Perhaps, but while I've always openly stated a need for choice and autonomy in my game design, I also do happen to like structure. Having a series of quests that are loosely connected is not exactly a gripping anchor for me and I found in most open world games that I simply get fatigued by "loads and loads" of quests because it becomes easy to see they borrow from the same five templates and only have cosmetic differences in narration to make them feel unique. The main issue for me that once I notice the pattern, the character can be Morgan Freeman doing a one man show of the Shawshank Redemption, and I'll still be bored because I realize I'm just completing another arbitrary list. I'm sure there are some games that do this better but considering none have come to mind, they probably didn't do anything to spark my interest in the first place, which is why I never played them in the first place. So I guess I can agree with the statement that open world games that interest me suck at it.

As for morality systems, I simply feel no one does them well because morality is subjective, but designers simply dumb it down for people as both a means to stay apolitical on certain matters and because it's just easier to implement than something that actually has dire consequences. Even in games like Mass Effect, you can still see the game falls into a simple black and white dichotomy of good vs. evil. The underlying problem with such a system is that the story generally only has one narrative direction, so regardless of whether you saved every dumb peasant who screamed for help or whether you broke into every house in a village to punch a baby in the face, you still ultimately wind up fighting some greater evil and topple it. The moral choice still fits within the narrative and you can't break it, once again, destroying the illusion that your choices matter. I've played games with choice systems that have made me stop and think about how I should tread, but none of these games use a moral system.

I am curious to hear what you feel are the cream of the crop in concern for these types of designs.

Fallout 2 is an open world, moral choice game and it doesn't have any of those issues.

I think part of the issue is that perhaps you don't deem a game to have "moral choice" if you don't see the black vs white selection, so therefore every game that is "moral choice" is black vs white? That's what it seems like to me, that you are subconsciously turning it into a One True Scotsman fallacy - if it isn't black vs white then it's not a true moral choice, so no moral choice games do anything but black vs white.

Unrelated to that, here are some games with deep, great turn-based strategy where you aren't dealing with consumable resource management in any way (aka you exit every fight with the same permanent state that you entered it), just off the top of my head, that I have played this year alone:

Cosmic Star Heroine
Final Fantasy Record Keeper
X-COM

OK well it turns out they don't make all that many turn-based games anymore and virtually none of them don't use attrition as a major mechanic so this was harder than I thought it might be. But I can't think of a BAD one that does it. What games in particular are you thinking of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Fallout 2 is an open world, moral choice game and it doesn't have any of those issues.

---

*Also, the Witchers. I know, I know, I'm a broken record.

I agree with Spuuky on regenerating health. I actually find "finding the right tactic" to be one of the most fun parts of RPGs, while managing my health and ability uses in dungeons to be one of the more tedious. I know a boss fight is coming and I have no intention of going in at anything less than 100%, so I find myself chugging through dungeons, holding back on using anything more fun and just swilling the 99 potions I've bought.

On moral choice systems, if done well they are superb but I would rather no moral choice system than a lazy one. A particular bugbear of mine is when getting more good/evil points grants you more abilities, railroading you to make either entirely good or entirely evil choices to maximise your character's potential. What if I think the "Paragon" choice is better the first time but the "Renegade" choice is better in the next quest?

Open World games that have nothing in them basically, FF XV is a good example of this.

Auto-Saving.

Saving that auto heals you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I agree with Spuuky on regenerating health. I actually find "finding the right tactic" to be one of the most fun parts of RPGs, while managing my health and ability uses in dungeons to be one of the more tedious. I know a boss fight is coming and I have no intention of going in at anything less than 100%, so I find myself chugging through dungeons, holding back on using anything more fun and just swilling the 99 potions I've bought.

On moral choice systems, if done well they are superb but I would rather no moral choice system than a lazy one. A particular bugbear of mine is when getting more good/evil points grants you more abilities, railroading you to make either entirely good or entirely evil choices to maximise your character's potential. What if I think the "Paragon" choice is better the first time but the "Renegade" choice is better in the next quest?

---

For me, the big problem with the Paragon/Renegade system was that Renegade wasn't a character.

For the most part, Paragon Shepard is a consistent, relatable character with a structured and defined morality and goal system. Generally, Paragon Shepard tried to understand everyone's viewpoint, and find ways to work with most of them, except when it was found to be completely abhorrent to that defined morality system. So, if you did play pure Paragon, you had a pretty consistent and logical character.

On the other hand, Renegade Shepard's sole point of consistency was "be an asshole to everyone". There was no overarching goal or system to it. Sometimes your character would argue one position with astounding ferocity, then turn around and argue the exact opposite position later just because the new person you're talking to was on the other side. Renegade Shepard didn't make sense as a character. The idea of the "do whatever the mission takes" character that was supposedly the original goal never really surfaced. At least, definitely not in ME2 or ME3. I need to play the original again.

Which is why I only generally took a few Renegade points throughout the games. A few of the interrupts (Garrus, you're my buddy, but I'm a sniper, and I'm not going to let you out-snipe me), and basically all the Renegade options on Tuchanka. Because they fit with my idea of a character who understands and works with other cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

On moral choice systems, if done well they are superb but I would rather no moral choice system than a lazy one. A particular bugbear of mine is when getting more good/evil points grants you more abilities, railroading you to make either entirely good or entirely evil choices to maximise your character's potential. What if I think the "Paragon" choice is better the first time but the "Renegade" choice is better in the next quest?

---

I agree with this completely. Probably my least favourite thing from Mass Effect. I also agree that moral choices can be done well but it's almost an insult to them when it's stuff like "Help the starving child" or "Nuke the orphanage." I mean, come on. But when it's done right, boy is it excellent

In regards to "your choices matter" I really like those systems, like KK. Even if it has 0 effect on the plot, if it gets me to reflect then I am very pleased with it. The Walking Dead had many moments that made me stop and go "Okay, what's really important to me here?" and that's awesome. It helped me learn more about myself and grow as a person, even if in the end it barely affected anything. Same with the ME:2 kill or brainwash thing, regardless of if there is an effect on the game, it has an effect on me.

As far as things people praise that I loathe, uhh

I guess difficulty? People tend to like the extra challenge and overcoming it and please just give me an easy option

Also a certain UI that everyone is in love with that I hate :greenie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Fallout 2 is an open world, moral choice game and it doesn't have any of those issues.

I think part of the issue is that perhaps you don't deem a game to have "moral choice" if you don't see the black vs white selection, so therefore every game that is "moral choice" is black vs white? That's what it seems like to me, that you are subconsciously turning it into a One True Scotsman fallacy - if it isn't black vs white then it's not a true moral choice, so no moral choice games do anything but black vs white.

---

In all honesty, that may be my issue. Course I also think my issue may be that I'm looking for more of a tabletop experience as well, where my choices have dramatic effect and change the story drastically as well. Often I find choices simply change the gritty details but not the whole picture and I feel I'm simply seeking the ability to rip the frame off the wall if I choose. Basically, if you're going to do a "choice system" go big or go home. The dramatic causality of Front Mission 3, where choosing to join a friend on a simple errand had more of an affect on me than Shephard choosing whether an alien species was going to live or die. Especially when the first choice dramatically changes the script while the second still leads to the same inevitable conclusion just one more or less cutscene involved.

I do have Fallout 2 on my playlist on steam but I need to finish Fallout 1 first.

Quote:

---

Unrelated to that, here are some games with deep, great turn-based strategy where you aren't dealing with consumable resource management in any way (aka you exit every fight with the same permanent state that you entered it), just off the top of my head, that I have played this year alone:

Cosmic Star Heroine
Final Fantasy Record Keeper
X-COM

OK well it turns out they don't make all that many turn-based games anymore and virtually none of them don't use attrition as a major mechanic so this was harder than I thought it might be. But I can't think of a BAD one that does it. What games in particular are you thinking of?

---

One of those is an actual Tactical RPG of which auto-heal between battles is simply par the course of the genre because the battles are the focus, and attrition was never a part of the genre's DNA. I'll give you the other two, though I have yet to play Cosmic Star Heroine, but I don't really consider Record Keeper to be a real RPG as much as a turn-based party simulator. Barring the CSH though, the other two titles lack what I'm looking for in an RPG, such as exploration and interesting level design. They are simply a battle system strung together by flavor text. Granted, there is nothing wrong with that, and I enjoy the genre.

To make this less controversial, I'm largely pointing out to the FF series since the jump to PS2 and beyond. Granted, I feel X-2 and XII have made it work out somewhat since both games ramp up the difficulty to the point where blowing through MP is incredibly easy, not to mention Save points are less plentiful in both. Some of the others largely just killed it for me. Even games like Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story, I often felt like item management might have made the game more exciting for me. My issue is that I enjoy the gamble of continuing on with low health and supplies over the relative safety of knowing that I'll be at full power. There is no thrill in playing it safe, and I would rather have the option to choose how I play than have it decided for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

I agree with Spuuky on regenerating health. I actually find "finding the right tactic" to be one of the most fun parts of RPGs, while managing my health and ability uses in dungeons to be one of the more tedious. I know a boss fight is coming and I have no intention of going in at anything less than 100%, so I find myself chugging through dungeons, holding back on using anything more fun and just swilling the 99 potions I've bought.

---

See and I enjoy item management, especially once I started playing more classic entries in the genre, and "holding back" becomes more of a self-imposed challenge so you stop doing it. Once you actually break from that mindset, you can finally see how much of a non-tedious issue it really is. Throw in the fact that I find most modern RPG bosses easy and requires only the most basic of tactics to surmount and you end up seeing how silly it is to feel you need to hold back. One of the most liberating moments for me in classic FF titles was realizing that Black Mages suck against most of the bosses and their real strength is getting you through the dungeon without needing to chug along 99 potions. You're mage is going to be dead weight either way, so it's better to let them mow down all those pesky enemy encounters on the way to the boss than feel the need to "save their strength" for a boss that brushes off magic like a falling leaf anyway. The human element is more at play here than an actual flaw in the design.

Quote:

---

On moral choice systems, if done well they are superb but I would rather no moral choice system than a lazy one. A particular bugbear of mine is when getting more good/evil points grants you more abilities, railroading you to make either entirely good or entirely evil choices to maximise your character's potential. What if I think the "Paragon" choice is better the first time but the "Renegade" choice is better in the next quest?

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

For me, the big problem with the Paragon/Renegade system was that Renegade wasn't a character.

For the most part, Paragon Shepard is a consistent, relatable character with a structured and defined morality and goal system. Generally, Paragon Shepard tried to understand everyone's viewpoint, and find ways to work with most of them, except when it was found to be completely abhorrent to that defined morality system. So, if you did play pure Paragon, you had a pretty consistent and logical character.

On the other hand, Renegade Shepard's sole point of consistency was "be an asshole to everyone". There was no overarching goal or system to it. Sometimes your character would argue one position with astounding ferocity, then turn around and argue the exact opposite position later just because the new person you're talking to was on the other side. Renegade Shepard didn't make sense as a character. The idea of the "do whatever the mission takes" character that was supposedly the original goal never really surfaced. At least, definitely not in ME2 or ME3. I need to play the original again.

Which is why I only generally took a few Renegade points throughout the games. A few of the interrupts (Garrus, you're my buddy, but I'm a sniper, and I'm not going to let you out-snipe me), and basically all the Renegade options on Tuchanka. Because they fit with my idea of a character who understands and works with other cultures.

---

As someone who played a RenShep, I disagree. I enjoy the more anti-establishment, "let's cut all the talking and just get on with it" approach over the more diplomatic Paragon. There is just something cathartic with arguing with someone and getting the option to just shoot them in the face. This is all helped by the fact that a large part of the ME universe is filled with self-righteous politicians and self-important bureaucrats, so I honestly felt like it was less of "be an asshole to everyone" and more of a "be an asshole right back at them". It does lose it's luster in the second game unless you're seriously laying the Humans First Master Race angle of the story, since just about every party member by that point in the script is cut from the same Renegade cloth except Jacob.

It especially hit home a bit more in ME3 where Shep spends more time debating about their choices and being more self-reflective. Paragon Shep feels like they are just over-analyzing things, but a RenShep has enough baggage to make this insight a bit more compelling and debating the ramifications of your choices affects the player as well.

Honestly, the only games I've seen pull off moral choice well so far (out of the ones I've played, of course) are SMT, Tactics Ogre, and the Witchers.

One thing all these games have in common is that it's never about good versus evil, but about choosing what you consider an optimal course of action in a very gray and gray (sometimes bordering on black and gray) world. In all three, there are varying degrees to which your choices change the story, but usually they do. It depends on the game in SMT, but usually at least the final act is completely different depending on your choice, in Tactics Ogre each chapter is different depending on the route you pick at the end of each one, and the Witcher has plenty of that - with a simple law/chaos/neutral choice in the first game, to chapters being vastly different in the second game, to the super complex chain reactions your choises cause in 3, I think these games are perfect examples of moral choices done right.

Granted I've only played two SMT but their choices tend to be "do you want this ending or this ending?" It's a lot easier to do that than a WRPG approach where you change things all throughout the game.

Also according to everyone I know, Law and Chaos are both bags of dicks and you should only ever choose Neutral. I'm pretty much the only Law supporter I've found.

Law is pretty popular in Japan actually, which is not at all surprising. You may change your opinion about Law if you ever play SMT2, cause that's the game that kind of branded them as the ultimate dicks of the MegaTen franchise. Not that SMTIV did them any favors...

I think Devil Survivor (before Overclock screwed it up) is the only entry I've played where Law is one of the better options. Though bringing this back to the topic of moral choice systems, what I like about SMT is the fact that the stories are really about exploring the factions that support the ideals rather than the choices simply being a way to play your characters. I mean when you choose to burn down a village or save it in Fallout, it's not like your choice affects your standing with the Enclave or the Brotherhood of Steel. The moral system is separate from the grander elements of the story, whereas it's the heart of the MegaTen titles. Even then though, I would point out that MegaTen itself can be pretty simplistic about their mechanics as well and looking back on the franchise as a whole, it's obvious that where you fall within the Law/Neutral/Chaos dynamic has a greater impact in SMT1 than it does in SMT4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Law is pretty popular in Japan actually, which is not at all surprising. You may change your opinion about Law if you ever play SMT2, cause that's the game that kind of branded them as the ultimate dicks of the MegaTen franchise. Not that SMTIV did them any favors...

I think Devil Survivor (before Overclock screwed it up) is the only entry I've played where Law is one of the better options. Though bringing this back to the topic of moral choice systems, what I like about SMT is the fact that the stories are really about exploring the factions that support the ideals rather than the choices simply being a way to play your characters. I mean when you choose to burn down a village or save it in Fallout, it's not like your choice affects your standing with the Enclave or the Brotherhood of Steel. The moral system is separate from the grander elements of the story, whereas it's the heart of the MegaTen titles. Even then though, I would point out that MegaTen itself can be pretty simplistic about their mechanics as well and looking back on the franchise as a whole, it's obvious that where you fall within the Law/Neutral/Chaos dynamic has a greater impact in SMT1 than it does in SMT4.

---

I heard Law and Chaos in SMT1 were glorified game overs. I played the first few minutes of it before abandoning it because sheesh it is archaic as hell but the first thing you hear in the game is DON'T BE smurfIN' WITH BALANCE. TOO MUCH LAW IS BAD AND TOO MUCH CHAOS IS BAD.

I'll maybe play SMT2 someday. I hear it's really good and interesting given its age.

It's still archaic as trout as well, though you may get a treat, because the main character Aleph is speculated to be Hiriji the reporter from SMT3. SMT1 has actually been a blast for me, but I eat up this retro trout. The biggest ways alignment affects you in the game is largely controlling who will work with you and frankly everything affects your alignment. Even using a healing church affiliated with a faction or only using demons of a certain alignment will keep adding points into one of the factions. Which can really suck since if you do try going the neutral route, you actually have to roll in the Law and Chaos factions for certain bits of the game and if you don't pay attention to these elements, you can wind up getting stuck as one of the factions. I had to pause my game

I wouldn't call the Law/Chaos endings glorified game overs. Technically the True Demon and White Ending from SMTIII and IV are more appropriate for that term since the ending is basically Total Reality Omnicide in both cases. Most of the time, Chaos is all about returning the Old Gods to glory and Law is building the Thousand Year Kingdom. Though interestingly enough, the Neutral ending in SMT1 is the canon ending since SMT2 picks up where it left off.

Me personally is quick time events, I think only in one or two instances it was implemented well but otherwise it was a cheap way out.
Because if you blunder the default reaction it is your fault not theirs and it's such an easy pattern to design for a game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

It's still archaic as trout as well, though you may get a treat, because the main character Aleph is speculated to be Hiriji the reporter from SMT3. SMT1 has actually been a blast for me, but I eat up this retro trout. The biggest ways alignment affects you in the game is largely controlling who will work with you and frankly everything affects your alignment. Even using a healing church affiliated with a faction or only using demons of a certain alignment will keep adding points into one of the factions. Which can really suck since if you do try going the neutral route, you actually have to roll in the Law and Chaos factions for certain bits of the game and if you don't pay attention to these elements, you can wind up getting stuck as one of the factions. I had to pause my game

I wouldn't call the Law/Chaos endings glorified game overs. Technically the True Demon and White Ending from SMTIII and IV are more appropriate for that term since the ending is basically Total Reality Omnicide in both cases. Most of the time, Chaos is all about returning the Old Gods to glory and Law is building the Thousand Year Kingdom. Though interestingly enough, the Neutral ending in SMT1 is the canon ending since SMT2 picks up where it left off.

---

True Demon gets you more content, not less. I thought they meant that going Law/Chaos in SMT1 gets you less stuff than Neutral because "you're doing it wrong stupid."

I also liked how you got different ultimate gear depending on your alignment. The Witcher pulled the same thing off and it was cool.

Speaking of that, the Witcher had that thing where in the main hub city there are two blacksmiths - one is aligned with the Scoia'Tael (elven and dwarven freedom fighters), while the other was aligned with the Order. If you chose either side, the other one won't provide their services to you anymore. If you go neutral, neither of them will, so you're stuck for a big chunbk of the game without a blacksmith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forsaken Lover

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

It's still archaic as trout as well, though you may get a treat, because the main character Aleph is speculated to be Hiriji the reporter from SMT3. SMT1 has actually been a blast for me, but I eat up this retro trout. The biggest ways alignment affects you in the game is largely controlling who will work with you and frankly everything affects your alignment. Even using a healing church affiliated with a faction or only using demons of a certain alignment will keep adding points into one of the factions. Which can really suck since if you do try going the neutral route, you actually have to roll in the Law and Chaos factions for certain bits of the game and if you don't pay attention to these elements, you can wind up getting stuck as one of the factions. I had to pause my game

I wouldn't call the Law/Chaos endings glorified game overs. Technically the True Demon and White Ending from SMTIII and IV are more appropriate for that term since the ending is basically Total Reality Omnicide in both cases. Most of the time, Chaos is all about returning the Old Gods to glory and Law is building the Thousand Year Kingdom. Though interestingly enough, the Neutral ending in SMT1 is the canon ending since SMT2 picks up where it left off.

---

True Demon gets you more content, not less. I thought they meant that going Law/Chaos in SMT1 gets you less stuff than Neutral because "you're doing it wrong stupid."

---

Yes and no, there are exclusive demons, equipment, and scenarios for going down the other paths. Beelzebub is an optional boss for instance that will fight you in the Law and Neutral paths. In Chaos, he joins you as a Lv. 99 Demon who makes short work the final dungeon for you. Neutral doesn't get any exclusive boss demons or anything, but the path lets you use all of the available, non-exclusive demons whereas Law and Chaos are restricted to their own faction and neutral demons.

In SMT2, Chaos can't recruit Satan because he's a Law/Neutral character and even in Neutral, I think you have to do some stuff to get him to join you. Course you get Lucifer in the Chaos path... So you do get stuff for going down certain paths exclusively but to be fair, True Demon is Director's Cut content as opposed to the game proper. You also do get some rewards for joining one of the other Reason factions in Nocturne as well.

This isn't intentional by programmer's but glitches. For instance someone finds a glitch that makes your player a God that can't be hurt and dish out damage. Every casual gammer jumps on it and then goes... This game is too easy. If you can't beat it in 5 hours you suck.

No no you exposed a flaw in the programming that gave you superpowers and you didn't work to get that ending. Maybe after I beat the game legit I may try the glitch for fun, but never before I play it the way it was intended first.