Biggest bullshit in a video game

I just found the gameplay uninteresting in Borderlands. You get thousands of trash gun drops that are worthless to use, worthless to sell, enemies are bullet sponges that take a million hits to kill, etc.
I'm fond of keeping weapons throughout a game, partly because of sentimentality and partly as a kind of autism. You wouldn't just throw away a perfectly good gun. Any time I play a game and the weapons are level specific I drop it immediately.

First person shooters with a consistent roster of weapons will always be better than a huge selection of different weapons that you're locked to a small number of at any time.
 
I just found the gameplay uninteresting in Borderlands. You get thousands of trash gun drops that are worthless to use, worthless to sell, enemies are bullet sponges that take a million hits to kill, etc.
Yeah I agree that there should have been some way to upgrade guns.
 
Finished Ender Lilies today and I'll add a few that are always shit:
1. Enemies in 2D video games that fire at you from off screen.
2. Boss attacks (especially in late stages) that are 1 hit kills and zero amount of sign what the attack will be. Becuase it's fun needing to redo a fight because the enemy decided to fire a huge ass laser at the side of the screen you are on and you'd thought you'd dodge it by sticking to the edge.
3. Bosses who's gimmick is summoning or running away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haftag
This shit ruined Hotline Miami 2
I dunno, those games were kind of like old Nintendo platformers where the first time you hit a level, there was some instadeath long fall you couldn't know was there because where you were jumping to was off screen. And unlike those old Nintendo games, you couldn't just start the level over and over, you had to start from scratch, with the painful memory of exactly where you suffered this unfairness burned into your mind and an insatiable desire for revenge.

It made the final victory sweeter.
 
I dunno, those games were kind of like old Nintendo platformers where the first time you hit a level, there was some instadeath long fall you couldn't know was there because where you were jumping to was off screen. And unlike those old Nintendo games, you couldn't just start the level over and over, you had to start from scratch, with the painful memory of exactly where you suffered this unfairness burned into your mind and an insatiable desire for revenge.

It made the final victory sweeter.
You could always see the enemies in the first game if they were in range of shooting you. Hotline Miami's perspective and one-hit kills lends itself to close quarters fights, or at least a reasonable limitation on the enemies' cone of vision. It's a lot like old school Castelvania, you die easy but you never get sucker-punched.

In HM2, the maps are so large and the line-of-sights are so long that you really can just get sniped from across the map over and over. The only recourse is to constantly pan over the map and it slows the game to a snail's pace. The level design in HM2 is just so bad in comparison to the first, it's difficult for me to even try to chalk it up to an intentional decision to make it more "retro".
 
The inability to fully customize control settings in console games, particularly in shooter games.

Here's a screenshot of the options menu from the Game Cube version of TimeSplitters 2.
1625772379875.png

See that? In all three TimeSplitters games, I can 100% curate the way I want to control the game. If I felt so inclined, I could remap the controls to play like the SNES port of Doom, where the analog stick has tank controls, the shoulder buttons strafe, and I shoot using the face buttons. Or heck, why not go full crazy and have the face buttons be your walk buttons? It'd be highly impractical to play this way, I know, but the fact that I can do that is what's important here. And these games were on 6th generation consoles.

Fast forward an entire console generation later, and games no-longer feature these kind of menus. Instead, all you get is a few presets designed by the developers for how they want you to control their game, rather than how you want to. It smacks of developer laziness, considering that a series from the early 2000's could implement a control binding menu, but newer games refuse to add one.

Admittedly, I haven't played many console games these days, so I don't know if this has changed at all. I've heard that the Switch allows you to rebind buttons on the dashboard, which is a step in the right direction, but it'd be much better if it was implemented in the game itself.
 
Admittedly, I haven't played many console games these days, so I don't know if this has changed at all. I've heard that the Switch allows you to rebind buttons on the dashboard, which is a step in the right direction, but it'd be much better if it was implemented in the game itself.


Xbox One has the same feature. Although as you say, that would change it for every single game.
 
The inability to fully customize control settings in console games, particularly in shooter games.

Here's a screenshot of the options menu from the Game Cube version of TimeSplitters 2.
View attachment 2327761
See that? In all three TimeSplitters games, I can 100% curate the way I want to control the game. If I felt so inclined, I could remap the controls to play like the SNES port of Doom, where the analog stick has tank controls, the shoulder buttons strafe, and I shoot using the face buttons. Or heck, why not go full crazy and have the face buttons be your walk buttons? It'd be highly impractical to play this way, I know, but the fact that I can do that is what's important here. And these games were on 6th generation consoles.

Fast forward an entire console generation later, and games no-longer feature these kind of menus. Instead, all you get is a few presets designed by the developers for how they want you to control their game, rather than how you want to. It smacks of developer laziness, considering that a series from the early 2000's could implement a control binding menu, but newer games refuse to add one.

Admittedly, I haven't played many console games these days, so I don't know if this has changed at all. I've heard that the Switch allows you to rebind buttons on the dashboard, which is a step in the right direction, but it'd be much better if it was implemented in the game itself.
I routinely cycle through about 3 games that have integrated ping systems. It drives me up the fucking wall that all of them have the ping button mapped differently and I keep fucking it up.
 
I routinely cycle through about 3 games that have integrated ping systems. It drives me up the fucking wall that all of them have the ping button mapped differently and I keep fucking it up.
At least they didn't pull a Rainbow Six: Siege and change the ping button after four years of it being assigned to left on the d-pad. What the actual fuck were they thinking? I still sometimes try to ping an enemy or trap and end up switching fire modes while watching my team-mates meander into Frost traps like the retards they are.
 
Admittedly, I haven't played many console games these days, so I don't know if this has changed at all. I've heard that the Switch allows you to rebind buttons on the dashboard, which is a step in the right direction, but it'd be much better if it was implemented in the game itself.
You can't do it on a game-by-game basis, which is insane. It's moreso just a feature for the physically retarded, or if you have a broken button and can stand using that as a workaround.
 
I routinely cycle through about 3 games that have integrated ping systems. It drives me up the fucking wall that all of them have the ping button mapped differently and I keep fucking it up.
At least they didn't pull a Rainbow Six: Siege and change the ping button after four years of it being assigned to left on the d-pad. What the actual fuck were they thinking? I still sometimes try to ping an enemy or trap and end up switching fire modes while watching my team-mates meander into Frost traps like the retards they are.
I have somewhat of a horror story involving Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition myself.

For context, on PC there are (at least) two different types of controller input formats: D-input, which is older and therefore used by older games, and X-input, which is used by modern games. Without going too much into detail, the two different formats have different button layouts for input IDs, which can result in wonky control settings as what might be the "B" button in one format might be "X" or "Y" in the other.

I didn't know that at the time I tried to play Dark Souls back when it came out on Steam for the first time. Since I was playing with a D-input controller, all of the on-screen button prompts were completely wrong, and the layout was confusing as all hell. I assumed at the time that the control scheme was designed by a group of retarded monkeys who'd never played a video game before. This headache could've been avoided if From Software weren't a bunch of lazy cunts and allowed me to rebind buttons in a way that made sense to me.

Even knowing this, I wish to rebind the controls, as I would want to rebind the controls to play a bit more like Ocarina of Time, which Dark Souls is very reminiscent of gameplay-wise, instead of slashing things with the triggers. But no, that's not allowed, because From Software said so.

Xbox One has the same feature. Although as you say, that would change it for every single game.
You can't do it on a game-by-game basis, which is insane. It's moreso just a feature for the physically retarded, or if you have a broken button and can stand using that as a workaround.
After typing that, I realized the potential retardation of this feature. Let's say, for example, I want to rebind a control that's on "B" to Clicking the Left Analog Stick and vice-versa. If I did this on the Switch/Xbox One, then EVERY input that uses "B" would be bound to the Left Analog Stick, which includes backing out of menus. I can tolerate that kind of shit on emulators, because at least I'm playing the game in an unofficial fashion, but not games that I bought legitimately.

For fuck's sake, why are console devs so allergic to a basic feature that's considered standard practice on PC? If a high-profile PC game was released and you couldn't rebind the controls, there would be riots in the streets, yet somehow this is considered acceptable on console? Why?
 
Procedural generation. I play a lot of indie PC games and so many developers are so horny about their procedural generation algorithms. The thing is, even when it looks good and doesn't do dumb shit like block a doorway with something so that rooms are inaccessible, procedurally generated levels just lack soul. You can't curate specific challenges for players and you can't use the environment to tell a story in the same way. In something like Hollow Knight, where every area is hand-designed, the environment tells a compelling story, you always know where you are, areas are elevated far beyond just being functional. Load up a random indie adventure game and nine times out of ten the levels are navigable and different areas will have different background elements, but nowhere feels unique. They try to sell it as infinite replayability but there's only so many times you can go through a soulless world where the rooms are in slightly different places before it just becomes draining.
 
The inability to fully customize control settings in console games, particularly in shooter games.

Here's a screenshot of the options menu from the Game Cube version of TimeSplitters 2.
View attachment 2327761
See that? In all three TimeSplitters games, I can 100% curate the way I want to control the game. If I felt so inclined, I could remap the controls to play like the SNES port of Doom, where the analog stick has tank controls, the shoulder buttons strafe, and I shoot using the face buttons. Or heck, why not go full crazy and have the face buttons be your walk buttons? It'd be highly impractical to play this way, I know, but the fact that I can do that is what's important here. And these games were on 6th generation consoles.

Fast forward an entire console generation later, and games no-longer feature these kind of menus. Instead, all you get is a few presets designed by the developers for how they want you to control their game, rather than how you want to. It smacks of developer laziness, considering that a series from the early 2000's could implement a control binding menu, but newer games refuse to add one.

Admittedly, I haven't played many console games these days, so I don't know if this has changed at all. I've heard that the Switch allows you to rebind buttons on the dashboard, which is a step in the right direction, but it'd be much better if it was implemented in the game itself.
Overwatch is the only recent shooter I know that allows you to customize controls.
 
Speaking of BS achievements, any game that has multiple achievements for beating the game on various difficulties, but finishing the game on a high difficulty doesn't give the achivements for the lower levels.
The worst one that I can remember was Dead or Alive 4 and the time trial mode.

Bronze - Complete Time Attack Single within 6 minutes.
Silver - Complete Time Attack Single within 5 minutes.
Gold - Complete Time Attack Single within 4 minutes 30 seconds.

Getting gold satisfied the requirements of all lower ranks, but no, you don't get those. They probably assumed people would work their way up and get the achievements for bronze, silver and gold in that order. I played time attack exactly once, was incredibly lucky, got gold(and became 7 on the global leaderboard, incredibly lucky run) and thought it was a bug that caused me not to get bronze and silver.
you're right, i just can't help but be peeved after being so used to "realistic" shooters. it's like a reflex. though there is a point where it can get a little too ridiculous with the balancing, i remember playing a certain game where you'd have to be like no more than 5 feet away to get a shotgun hit on them. i can't remember the name frankly. it's a really old shooter so who cares.
Quake had an across-the-map shotgun that I really liked, and a massive damage double barrel shotgun for close range. Being a starter weapon the regular shotgun dealt pitiful damage at both close and long range but it was enough to get opponents moving, so it was the go-to long range harassment weapon. I never liked the inclusion of railguns in the later games, they were super powerful, infinite range and hit scan. That's not a balance that I like and snipers in general are bullshit and anti-fun. Quake Wars had the right kind of sniper, it was a support role that picked off stragglers(stealing kills) and flushed out groups of players from cover as they were suddenly getting hit in the butt. Then your team mates blasted them and you stole the kills.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Captain Syrup
The skele-dogs from DS1 are the cheapest enemy in the entire game. They hit like a truck on NG and can guard break greatshields like they're nothing. They have a move where they spaz out and lunge at you with quick swipes which will stunlock and probably kill you. They placed them in the most annoying spots too, the first one you meet comes to mind since it can aggro a black knight to you. Tomb of the Giants is just a bullshit area in general. Great game tho
 
The skele-dogs from DS1 are the cheapest enemy in the entire game. They hit like a truck on NG and can guard break greatshields like they're nothing. They have a move where they spaz out and lunge at you with quick swipes which will stunlock and probably kill you. They placed them in the most annoying spots too, the first one you meet comes to mind since it can aggro a black knight to you. Tomb of the Giants is just a bullshit area in general. Great game tho
Imagine actually fighting the skele-dogs.
f6ZY5Mo.gif
 
Back