Game mechanics I hate

Starting a brand new year with a rant post? Well, they do say to start as you mean to go on :)

I’ve been a gamer for, rather disconcertingly, just about 30 years now. The first game I really remember playing was a Midway coin-op called ‘Blue Shark’, which used to sit just off the cafeteria of a butterfly farm / mini-golf establishment near my home, where we used to go for days out sometimes. I remember it clearly, because they had a series of steps set up in front of it so that even a 5-6 year old like me could reach the harpoon gun and see the screen. The rules of gaming were being written on the fly, Space Invaders was brand new, and colour displays and Pac Man were but a pipe-dream. The possibilities seemed limitless.

So, 30 years on and gaming’s rulesets are far better defined – we still get occasional new formulas popping up, or new takes on existing styles, but there are a large number of gaming staples which fill out our entertainment ecosystem that we’ve come to accept, and even expect. As it happens though, I think some of them should have died out a number of years ago.

  1. Content unlocking
    It’s a traditional thing – lock away a bunch of content in the game until the player proves themselves ‘worthy’ of experiencing it. The core of this mechanic came from the arcades, that you progressed linearly through the ‘waves’ or, later on, ‘levels’ of the game and you had to survive to see them. Because arcades made their money from people having to play again and again to get good enough to see this content, it made perfect sense. Now, however, we all pay up-front for a game and therefore we should be able to experience all of it, no matter what our skill level. Not to be able to access all the content just because we’re not finely honed gaming gods/goddesses is effectively stealing our money.
    Now, the easy way to deal with this when it comes to the main story progression is to offer multiple difficulty levels, meaning that all players should be able to find a level they can play at. This is what most games do, and that’s fine. However, there are some games that decide to lock things away based on a fixed difficulty level, or a poorly judged difficulty curve. The 2 worst examples in recent years are Mario and Sonic At The Olympics (unable to play half the events unless you invest significant amounts of time in beating the first lot), and Guitar Hero 3 (unable to play half the songs in co-op at a difficulty level until you beat the career mode in co-op at that difficulty). But any game that hides characters, moves, levels etc behind closed doors until a user beats it at a fixed difficulty level is just plain wrong. Purists will start to whine at this point and say that there needs to be a challenge otherwise people will just skip playing the game ‘properly’. This is elitist nonsense. What they’re really saying is that, because they’re skilled gamers, they want some content all to themselves that they can gloat about because they’re so damn awesome. You have your achievements / trophies to lord it over lesser gamers if that’s your bag, you should not resent people accessing all the content they’ve paid for. IMO, all games should come with an option to ‘Unlock All’ immediately, from day 1 if the customer chooses. Forget silly cheat codes you have to find on the internet, which are just an obsfucated version of this feature. And don’t tell me that being able to instantly cheat will be too tempting and spoil the experience for weak-willed players. If they’re that way inclined, they’ll find a cheat code anyway. Let’s stop pretending that people don’t want this, and just give it to them and let them choose whether to use it or not.
  2. Bosses With Scripted Attacks And Limited, Timed Weak Spots
    You know the drill. Enter curiously structured chamber with no exit, enjoy a little intro video where the boss makes a dramatic entrance and does the anthropomorphic equivalent of flexing his pecs at you, then run about while boss repeats a sequence of scripted actions, during which time you’re supposed to analyse his behaviour, memorise it, and then determine where his unique weak spots are, and at which arbitrary points in time you are allowed to exploit them. The only way to defeat this creature is to behave precisely as the game designer dictates – deviation is not an option. I’m sure it’s an OCD sufferers dream but I find it incredibly annoying and constricting. So many games do it – Zelda is perhaps the most obvious, and indeed was responsible for developing the approach more than most, but you can find these sequences almost everywhere; I just experienced one in Gears 2 last night in fact (water monster attacking your gunboat). The idea that there’s this creature that will perform certain actions by rote, and be curiously invincible to everything except at particular times and particular tiny spots is archaic. By all means, a creature may be more or less vulnerable at different spots on its body, but the idea that you can only attack it with particular weapons at particular times, as it follows this curious repeating puppetry is an insult to the sort of cohesive interaction games can now create. What’s crazy is that, for example in Gears 2, everywhere else the simulation of the enemies and the outcomes of your actions is first-class. Everything reacts as you would expect, and it’s entirely up to you how to address a particular situation, within the rules that have been defined. Suddenly having all this freedom of expression ripped away and being forced to follow a strict Simple Simon series of actions just because the arbitrary setpiece tells you to, and most annoyingly dying several times as you try to figure out what that arbitrary series of ‘accepted’ actions is supposed to be, is a major retrograde step. By all means have boss set-pieces. But don’t fundamentally change the rules of the game and force the player into a tiny restricted vocabulary of scripted actions that they have to perform, just because you think it makes a good atmosphere. Even assuming the player manages to get inside your head and figure out what they’re supposed to do, what you’ve done is take away all the freedom you gave them elsewhere and made the player your puppet, dutifully acting out the precise sequence you wanted them to like a good little performer. You might was well have made it a cutscene with QTEs really, given that all the freedom that is implied by allowing the character to behave as usual is entirely useless.
    Instead, give bosses the same kind of adaptive behavioural characterstics as the rest of the creatures in the game. By all means define areas where they are more or less vulnerable, so long as that makes logical sense. Let the player use any weapon or object they’d normally use, and make it behave just as it normally does. Sure, there may be tactics which are better / faster than others, because of weak spots and particular kinds of timed behaviour. But don’t script it to the Nth degree and use absolutes like ‘this creature is completely invulnerable except at point A at time X, with weapon Y or scripted triggered sequence Z’, that’s just dumb.
  3. Lives
    Lives made sense when you needed an incentive to make people stuff another 50p into a machine on a regular basis. When there is no pay-per-play mechanic, they make absolutely no sense, except to artificially increase the play time by forcing the player to return to some earlier point and work their way through the same content all over again to get back to the point they had got to.
    If you want to reward people for not having to continue so much, associate achievements with getting through the game without having to continue, or without dying. But forcing a player to re-play content again and again because they’re not skilled enough is likely to just make them stop playing entirely.
  4. Memory Games
    You know the situation – you walk into either an instant-death scenario, or at least a case where your chance of survival is massively decreased unless you already know what’s going to happen. Again, this is really common – arcade games have flourished on this for generations, and many FPS’s rely on it too. Again take Gears 2, an excellent game, but it occasionally throws situations at you where unless you knew it was going to happen, you don’t have much chance of survival – mortar attacks are a key example. You could be in the middle of battle, and suddenly die because of a barrage of mortar fire. Next time, you know there’s going to be a mortar guy so you pay more attention to finding him and taking him out early, so you do much better. I don’t like this, yet many games rely on it, feeling they can make some things harder because the second time through players will be ready for it. As a counter example I’d use Left 4 Dead – because absolutely every game is different, you never know what’s coming. As such, the game design can never rely on repetition as a difficulty normaliser, it has to be possible to survive just based on the visual / audio cues the game gives, and the players wits. IMO taking the firm stance that a player should be able to glean everything he needs on the first playthrough, and not relying on memory, encourages better discipline in the challenge design.

I’m sure there are more, but that’s all I can think of right now. Any other pet hates?

  • http://damieng.com Damien Guard

    It’s not so much content unlocking as rewarding play… without doing that half the addiction of playing is gone.

    [)amien

  • spacegaier

    Steve, you really made a point with #1. I’ve never seen it from this side, that you have paied for the whole content of a game and therefore should get total access to it, but you are right.

    There should be an built-in feature to unlock (at least in small steps) the whole game content.

    The other points are also true in some games. You sometimes find yourself asking while playing a game, for what the developers get paid? Often simple alterations could have made the gaming experience a lot better!

    Happy new year!

    spacegaier

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    @Damien: But you shouldn’t have to ‘reward play’, like it’s some kind of chore, some kind of price you have to pay in return for something else. Play is entertainment, and is therefore a means to its own end, or at least it should be. If you can’t enjoy the activity of playing the game just in itself then something is wrong. For the person who needs an extra incentive to play (and we’re probably talking about the predomominantly male need to conquer here), there are always achievements to unlock. For those who fel the need to beat a game a certain way, there are ways to reward that without holding back content from people that just want to experience it for pure fun.

  • http://stormsonggames.com KungFooMasta

    Adding to the list of things I don’t like in games, I recently got an RPG game for the wii that doesn’t let you skip cut scenes, especially ones I’ve already seen them before! (yep I got owned :D) Another irritation is not letting players instantly warp out of a dungeon, after having done all the puzzles and fighting to the very bottom (or top), including killing the boss. In scenarios where leaving the dungeon doesn’t add to the storyline, its just a waste of time hacking back out of the 10 floors of dungeon.

  • Dave Bassett

    I was ranting about content unlock myself, the kids and I play Mario Kart Wii, we are not very good but its something we enjoy, the only way we are ever going to get to play the extra tracks is if i sit up all night unlocking them. Surely that not the point. Beside i paid for the game i want all the content now!

  • http://bazlurgan.blogspot.com/ Bazlurgan

    Okay then, so lets get this straight… you want the following:

    1) Games where you want everything immediately accessible, characters, levels, music, stages etc., without that pesky annoying necessity of actually playing the game…

    2) Completely random fights in games, where everything is left purely to chance. Without the need to learn tactics and utilised memory, thought or planning.

    3) Unlimited lives, so you can try endlessly until you get something right.

    4) Again, complete and utter random mechanics, so one moment the game might by as easy as pie, the next as hard as bricks… Sounds like fun…

    Why do you play games again???? :)

    I am of course jesting (slightly).

    I do agree with some points (on a minor level), and granted I have not played Left 4 Dead, from which I believe a lot of this is based upon, however, the more I see of the game, the less I like the looks of it…

    I may give this issue some more thought and post my pet hates idc.

  • http://bazlurgan.blogspot.com/ Bazlurgan

    Okay – had a little time to think about it…

    My game pet hates are:

    1) (The big one) Games that allow you to save as much as you want and whenever you want. This stems mainly from PC games, but does carry across to console games as well. Examples such as Bioshock, Half Life etc. The reason that I hate this so much is that it is so simple to save after every single encounter, therefore making it in a way, a simple way to cheat, as it takes away all the challenge. Also, I can never hit the balance right between saving often enough, or not enough, which frustrates the hell out of me. I know the argument would be that it’s better to have the choice to save wherever and whenever, but I really don’t think there is any need for this at all. I MUCH prefer a checkpoint type system, where the game saves automatically when you reach a certain spot (think along the lines of COD4 etc), as this challenges you as a player much more.

    2) The inability to skip, or more importantly pause, cut scenes. Now I don’t mind cut scenes, in fact I rather enjoy most, but the inability to skip them or pause them is inexcusable.

    3) Invisible walls. Example, when a character is walking along a ledge, there is ground below which he could get to by simply stepping off the ledge to fall a few feet to the ground, but the game prevents you from doing this. Dumb and annoying.

    4) The inability to customise your controls.

    5) No varied difficulty levels. Elliot (5 years old) loves games, but some are just too hard for him and the games that do not offer an easy difficulty level quickly frustrate. Not all gamers are masters of the controller, give newbies and children a break.

    Well that’s all I can think of at the moment… I’m sure that there are plenty more.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    @Baz: You’ve misunderstood with your ‘random chance’ points. In fact, my point is in fact exactly the opposite. Boss battles where the mechanics of the rest of the game get tossed out the window and some one-off set of rules suddenly apply is FAR more random. What I’m saying is make the mechanics of the boss battles consistent. If you read the post more carefully, you’d see that I’m not talking about a lack of strategy AT ALL. I’m talking about being able to use all the strategies that you usually have at your disposal, instead of having to play out some kind of one-off scripted puppetry. Absolutely make setpieces special, with strategies that work better than others, but don’t throw the usual rule book out of the window and resort to glorified QTEs just because it’s a boss.

    Only one of these rants has anything at all to do with Left4Dead (point 4), but then it’s just a counter example – I hated memory game mechanics before I ever played it anyway. You talk about things being too easy, but memory games bias the difficulty enormously – too hard the first time, too easy every time after that. The trick should be making the difficulty right the first time you come across it, not relying on replay to normalise the difficulty.

    On the lives point, you complained about LBP’s lives mechanics yourself the other day IIRC…

    I think generally we don’t agree a lot about games these days. You tend to be more of a traditionalist, single-player, hardcore sort of player, wheras I’ve tended to move away from that over the years to be more of a recreational player.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    @Baz:

    1) This point definitely exposes your hardcore roots. If you wanted to save less often to increase the challenge, you could – it’s entirely up to you. So is your problem that other people could use it to ‘cheat’? Or that despite not liking it you’re somehow overcome by temptation to use it yourself?

    2) 100% agreed. For me though, cutscenes longer than 30 seconds also get the thumbs down. I play games to play, not watch.

    3) Definitely.

    4) Does this ever happen anymore? I’d also say that ignoring convention is also a big no-no. I found Mirrors Edge’s control scheme annoying because it was completely at odds with every convention for no good reason.

    5) I agree, but it’s funny, this point supports 2 of my own points that you disagreed with (unlocking and lives, both of which disadvantage young & inexperienced gamers)

  • http://www.kartsim.com Vectrex

    “1) This point definitely exposes your hardcore roots. If you wanted to save less often to increase the challenge, you could – it’s entirely up to you. So is your problem that other people could use it to ‘cheat’? Or that despite not liking it you’re somehow overcome by temptation to use it yourself?”

    I actually agree completely with no saving and here’s why. The best example is AvP 1. No saving, just large checkpoints. The atmosphere and tension was amazing. All the other AvP games allow saving and are dull. Why not just choose not to ignore quick save? Because the games are designed with quicksave in mind. AvP 1 knew you couldn’t save so they’d never do the ‘mortar out of nowhere, so you have to remember it next time’ thing. The game made you feel in control, you always knew you had a chance. With quicksave game design, the designers don’t give a crap generally because they know players just run through without a care and memorise for next time. Sometimes you have to not give the player what they think they want :) You just have to be very clever and careful about it. Counterstrike is another good example. It’d be nothing with the ‘dead until next round’ mechanic. Of course people WANT to respawn straight away but anticipation is a powerful thing in games if done right.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    Ok, I can see the tension aspect to an extent. However this also has to be set against the frustration of repetition. Remember, ‘save points’ came about originally because of technical limitations (consoles didn’t have enough storage space to save anywhere), not game design. When you’re far from a checkpoint and you *don’t* die, it’s tension. When you die for the 5th time 10 minutes from a checkpoint, that’s approaching an hour of repetition, which gets tedious.

    I actually like checkpointing systems when they’re tight, like Gears. This is because it means you don’t have to think about a saving system, it just does it without getting in your way, it’s not because I consider it to be some kind of ‘extra challenge’. Personally, I’d normally save on the same kind of frequency as Gears’ checkpoints anyway. But yeah, some people I know would save every time they downed an enemy, which of course makes it easier. But it’s their game, right? They should be able to choose how they play it. Some people play with ‘God Mode’ on all the time for fun, and if that’s what floats their boat, more power to them. I think there’s too much of traditional gamers sitting on their high horses, wanting to dictate to others how they should play their games. They bought it, let them play it how they want.

    Personally I hated Counter Strike because it was so unforgiving. A more hardcore game would be hard to find, since a) it’s a multiplayer shooter, and b) one mistake and you’re out for up to 10 minutes or more. Definitely not a game that’s friendly to newcomers, or those short of time.

  • http://bazlurgan.blogspot.com/ Bazlurgan

    I did say that I actually agreed with some of your points (just probably not as aggressively).

    Certainly as for the unlimited lives, for LBP I think it would be a good idea. Following on from my points, I would have added an “easy” option, allowing the play through of levels with unlimited lives. I guess it all boils down to the type of game and also to a degree the target audience, but all the same, I am all for an “easy” option for games.

    @ Vectrex: You completely hit the bail on the head with my complaints on the save anywhere approach, it just drops the tension from the game. With reasonably checkpoints you feel like it is a real challenge to get from one to the next. Without them, you could just do whatever you want… therefore the tension drops to zero.

    BTW I certainly wouldn’t classify myself as a “hardcore” gamer… would you? Maybe raditionalist (to a degree), but I like to think that I enjoy a reasonable spectrum of games, but yeah, I guess our taste in games does tend to differ these days, but what the heck, variety and all that.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    Again I repeat that being able to save anywhere makes it your choice. If you want tension, only save it rarely. That’s entirely your choice. Those that don’t care about tension but more about not repeating a section can save more often. It’s not like someone is forcing you to save it every 5 minutes. Associate achievements with using less than a certain number of saves to give an incentive to play the ‘tense’ way. But railroading players into one mindset is bad, IMO.

    Yeah, I’d definitely categorise you as a hardcore gamer. Not in the ‘FPS nut’ kind of way that’s often associated with the term, but certainly in wanting to beat a game in a traditional way, enjoying being strongly tested to see all the content, etc. Like getting all the stars in SMG for example. I don’t see ‘hardcore’ as meaning limited to certain genres, but more about enjoying a high difficulty level and being completionist. I’m definitely more recreational, in that I have a lower tolerance for when a game feels more like work than fun. I’m not inexperienced or casual, but in the grand scale of harcore to casual I’m maybe in the middle ground somewhere. That’s why I think flexibility is important so that both ends of the spectrum can enjoy a game.

  • http://www.visual3d.net/game-engine Dan

    I couldn’t agree with Steve more, “Have it your way”. For people who want all the so called “tension” of check points, and the thrill of “unlocks”, fine, play the game on that path. But for others who don’t want to fuss with all that and want freedom, don’t force us into a box! Let us simply get to the content we want to get to without putting in loooong hours that many of us do not have to spare. We don’t have to prove anything to Baz, Damien or anyone else. ;)

  • http://www.stormsonggames.com KungFooMasta

    For that matter, I think all the Rock Band equipment should be freely available to. I paid for the game, I should be able to have the coolest gear and guitar at the beginning of the game, right? It seems the only thing that will set advanced players from the casual players will be labels next to their name. (trophies)

  • Leedgitar

    #1 is one I was just thinking about on New Years Eve. We went to my friends, and he just literally ripped the plastic off of Rock Band 2. The set list was, as a result, quite limited because there had been no time for “sound checks” in order to unlock everything. Luckily I found a cheat code online to lock the songs, so at least there was the option to do so.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    @Leedgitar: The same here, although my wife & I had a day or two before we had friends round so we looked up on the Internet the quickest way to unlock all the songs (the cheat only operates for one session). It didn’t take long, but I definitely think locking away songs in a game like this is wrong.

  • Paul Evans

    I’m on the fence about most of those. Lives I agree with, esp mixed with stingy save options… I lost over an hour of play yesterday in Lost Odyssey because I forgot to save and came up with a Game Over Screen “no checkpoint set” and the option was to “quit game”. Nice.

    The content thing… depends on the content. If you have mastered something then a special ninja outfit or gamerpic, etc is a just reward. Anything much more substantial then something aesthetic (like tracks, levels, etc) then I would agree.

    I think most of the other points would be fixed if the replay mechanic wasn’t too harsh. Some people really liked Mirrors Edge, despite it being basically missing a jump and then being put back a little while and then to get on with getting it right. Trail and error play… not really my thing anymore I suppose. There again Rock Band really is all about fail and retry, or retry and perfect so I suppose it really depends on the execution as to if it is fun or not.

    I think the bosses point you made is quite fair… may be if a player is obviously having a tough time then the game could drop more and more hints to help you out. One game I came across recently… perhaps Blue Dragon… had bosses where part of the fight was to survive for a while until the characters worked out the hitpoints… though that was quite annoying too.

    All really interesting points though, things that I’ve def discussed with various people over the last few months.

  • kinjalkishor

    Yes, the choice of saving should be on player. i am happy to see this in consoles. No quick saves make the game awfully lengthy, as u will clear the hurdle anyway.
    Other annoyances are similr to steve’s.
    I remember the music player in UT2k4 which allwed to play the song of choice in any level. Features of this kind are great. That’s why Gears of war annoyed me so much. I think Crysis and COD 4 donot have these problems.
    Also I remmber Jedi Outcast, a very tough game but with quick saves and it was still tough. Yes I cheated in that game and it was still tough. I still play it and like it.
    I too am these days inclined towards random games. But a story game like HL2EP2 once in a while is great.
    Also imagine Portal without quiock saves. If it was not for quick saves I would have abandoned it halfway in android hell level, but quicksave made it great for me.
    In summary every choice should be unlockable and matter of chosing should be left on user.

  • Merus

    I remember buying The Sims off my brother for a dollar. He’d used a cheat code to wish himself a million dollars, and found himself without any challenge. I’ve never really forgotten that, although I agree in principle that locking things is the wrong way to go about it.

    If we want to reward players for investing the time to learn the nuances of the game, but still allow them to play what they want, honestly I think something like an achievement system or an RPG-like “level up” system is the way to go. Geometry Wars, one of the first games with achievements and one of the better-implemented of those (though I argue that Hexic was probably the best), used its achievement system to provide structure to an arcade game, over and above “get a high score” which isn’t fulfilling to those players who aren’t motivated by beating scores. In addition, it asked players to consider playing the game in an unusual fashion, which co-incidentally was a way to develop the skills needed to survive high-level play without having to reach that level. Pacman CE, also on the Xbox 360, uses achievements in a similar way, to encourage players to experiment with advanced techniques.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    Yes, I agree – as I mentioned previously I think achievements are the best way to motivate people without locking content away. Let them enjoy the game, but reward them for getting through the game and performing unusual or tricky tasks with an orthogonal reward system. Honestly I think Microsoft’s greatest contribution this generation is the achievement system, it’s really go so much potential, and didn’t deserve to get an image of just being about gamerscore willy-waving.

  • Pingback: GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Game mechanics to hate- What are you waiting for?

  • Andre

    “Honestly I think Microsoft’s greatest contribution this generation is the achievement system, it’s really go so much potential, and didn’t deserve to get an image of just being about gamerscore willy-waving.”

    But that’s exactly what it is. Achievement points offer nothing tangible, whereas a proper in-game reward system does. IMO, the best games are the ones that offer enough content from the get-go, yet hide enough away for those willing to earn it.

    I am curious about another taspect of your “content unlocking” stance. What about a game like Zelda, where incremental awards (new items, heart pieces, extended magic, etc) are tied into the gameplay, story, and narrative. Should gamers have access to all of this from the get-go too, since they paid for it? After all, it’s up to the gamer to use it or not–they wouldn’t have to, so why shouldn’t it be unlocked too?

  • stalepie

    “But forcing a player to re-play content again and again because they’re not skilled enough is likely to just make them stop playing entirely.”

    Not for me. That’s exactly why I enjoy so many old games like Castlevania. I *like* that the game punishes you when you do bad. It’s just part of the game experience to me.

  • sam

    nice to see a well thought out posting and equally well thought out replies.

    “I remember buying The Sims off my brother for a dollar. He’d used a cheat code to wish himself a million dollars, and found himself without any challenge. I’ve never really forgotten that, although I agree in principle that locking things is the wrong way to go about it.”

    It’s interesting, because I often do the same thing with sim games (the sims, simcity). But it enhances the game for me because I’m not really interested in the whole “build yourself up” aspect but much prefer having the money to build the houses, cities etc that I want and carry on with the game from there. It’s the type of game where different people get different things out of it and there are several ways to play.

    It took me years of frustration to beat the 15-minute brawl in super smash bros melee and I have to say that even when I finally did beat it to get the final stage i was missing, I didn’t feel any sense of achievement. It was more the relief of having no more frustration from it, which I don’t think is right! I think Brawl has a fairer balance of challenge for different gamers.

  • http://www.stevestreeting.com Steve

    “I am curious about another taspect of your “content unlocking” stance. What about a game like Zelda, where incremental awards (new items, heart pieces, extended magic, etc) are tied into the gameplay, story, and narrative. Should gamers have access to all of this from the get-go too, since they paid for it? After all, it’s up to the gamer to use it or not–they wouldn’t have to, so why shouldn’t it be unlocked too?”

    That’s a little different, since to have the items earlier in the game would destroy the gameplay. Also a reasonable difficulty scaling would allow this to not be prohibitive. I’m talking about content that has absolutely no reason to be hidden from the player except as an incentive to ‘better themselves’ – ie you don’t get to see world X / character Y unless you beat the game on Hard mode etc, after which they are always accessible. My argument is that Achievements give just as much incentive (perhaps more, because they’re publicly visible as bragging rights), without penalising those who are not hardcore enough to want to refine their skills incessantly just to see the content they already paid for.

    Personally I think the comments in this article back up my thoughts – people are different. Hardcore gamers are of the opinion that they need to be punished / challenged to the Nth degree, less hardcore gamers see that as a waste of time. I love games, and have been playing them for decades, but let’s face it – most of us have other things to be doing with our time too. There’s a balance to be had between being ‘challenging’ and just being a pain in the ass. Gamers who see games as a way to ‘prove their metal’ (and I guarantee these are almost 100% young males) will never agree with the stance that ‘the masses’ should be allowed to enjoy the same content they do. It’s an elitism thing. I say Achievements give you Elitism without making a game purchase less worthwhile for regular people, or even ex-hardcore gamers like me.

    And to the guy (and I know it’s a guy) on the incoming link article at GoNintendo.com that commented “obvious this guys first system was a current gen console” – congratulations on not even having the attention span to read the first paragraph of this blog post, where I clearly point out I’ve been gaming for 30 years, probably from before you were born.

  • Pingback: Game Tycoon»Blog Archive » Articles of Interest

  • Crimson

    I sereously cant think of anything that is disagree with in this article excpet for maybe the exception of some memory games. not ones that cuase you to have to replay contet that was previously played but to were you will do better knowing somthing.

    Good points though.