Main > Everything Else
Games that do stuff to annoy you
TOK:
Too many to list, but my main peeve that kills any game for me is the "do-over". Games like Rolling Thunder where you screw up and they put you back to the beginning of the level regardless of how close you were to next stage. Only game I've ever been able to tolerate this in is Xevious.
Now that I'm getting old and my coordination is atrophying, I also don't like games that don't have a continue feature.
MaximRecoil:
--- Quote from: TOK on July 22, 2006, 09:51:49 pm ---Too many to list, but my main peeve that kills any game for me is the "do-over". Games like Rolling Thunder where you screw up and they put you back to the beginning of the level regardless of how close you were to next stage. Only game I've ever been able to tolerate this in is Xevious.
--- End quote ---
I'd like to knows who's bright idea that was, and why it caught on enough that plenty of games ended up having that "feature". That's a good example of something that seems to have been done solely to annoy people; as I can't think of any other reason why anyone would design a game like that.
I can understand taking away powerups when you get dusted, but two things that should never be taken away in a game are linear progress and points.
NightGod:
I can sum it up the reason why in one word.
Hell, not even a word, a single symbol:
$
Kevin Mullins:
--- Quote from: MaximRecoil on July 23, 2006, 02:49:46 am --- but two things that should never be taken away in a game are linear progress and points.
--- End quote ---
Yup... take away linear progress gives more oppurtunity to die = more $ because you're bound to try again.
Shinobi does the same thnig as Rolling Thunder.
I own it and still suck at it.
MaximRecoil:
--- Quote ---Yup... take away linear progress gives more oppurtunity to die = more $ because you're bound to try again.
--- End quote ---
On the other hand, having to do something over that you have just done increases the frustration level. Have you ever had a computer crash when working on a project and you haven't saved in the last hour or so? Assuming there is no official "deadline" to meet, are you more apt to say "to hell with it" and save starting the lost work over for another day or jump right back in with greater determination and resolve?
Also, from a money making point of view, assuming a progressive difficulty curve in the game, the farther you are along, the more likely you are to get dusted. If you are having trouble with a new, particularly difficult area of the game, say, near the end of a level, and they start you back at the beginning of the level when you die, you are very likely to be able to get back through that level to the point you died before (longer playing time for the money); as opposed to starting from the same spot you died in and immediately getting trounced again.
That "feature" really makes no sense from any angle that you look at it. Since the player has to immediately cover ground he has just covered; given the fact that he made it through that ground at least once, it is likely that he can do it again, which means longer (but irritating and frustrating) play time per quarter, which means less money in the coin bucket. That is, assuming the player doesn't just say "screw it" to the "generous offer" of redoing the level, and walk away, which also doesn't put quarters in the bucket.
This "feature" in certain games is either the result of flawed reasoning or an intentional effort on the part of the makers to irritate the customer, which seems a bit counter-productive to me.
Name one game with this "feature" that was considered to be a major "quarter sucker". The two biggest "quarter suckers" that I know of, Rampage and Double Dragon, certainly didn't work like that. A more current example of a major "quarter sucker" is the Metal Slug series of games, which also do not work that way.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version