Gaming Conventions Which Are Obsolete But Still Stick Around

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

1. Inventory management.

Why it's annoying: It ends up just being "busywork" for the gamer after a fight.Many games also go overboard, purposely giving you tons of weapons which are worthless, instead of just giving gold.

Why it's obsolete: Because inventory doesn't make you richer like it did before. In old games, strong warriors could carry around more loot than weak mages, making inventory a way of making the game different between classes. Now, warriors carry the same as mages as rogues.

2. Turn-based combat

Why it's annoying: if you've ever played Civ, you know that turn-based combat is often clunky and time-consuming. Also, AI rarely is any good at turn-based combat and devising novel strategies.

Why it's obsolete: turn-based combat is a relic from board game days and when you had to actually do like long-division to figure out what happened after a combat roll.

Computers nowadays are infinitely faster for doing combat calculations

3. Click to move. Like you see in Diablo 3.

Why it's annoying: Not as good as WASD movement, you can accidently order your character to move instead of attack.

Why it's obsolete: Click to move was basically a result of tech limitations which forced isometric perspectives for RPG games. Now, you have 3d cameras.

4. Adjusting stats like STR, AGI in games

Why it's annoying: you don't really see much of an effect in the game, and skill trees are better

Why it's obsolete: because modern games have long campaigns. You can find yourself 15 hours in and unable to beat a level because of a choice you made at the start of the game when you didn't know what was going on.

#2 Posted by Lulekani (2216 posts) -
Hell Yeah ! I Couldnt Agree More ! I follow a simpler mantra though "no RPG's" of any kind ! Which is shame because Bioshock Infinite really peaked my interest.
#3 Posted by wiouds (5086 posts) -

1. Inventory management.

Why it's annoying: It ends up just being "busywork" for the gamer after a fight.Many games also go overboard, purposely giving you tons of weapons which are worthless, instead of just giving gold.

Why it's obsolete: Because inventory doesn't make you richer like it did before. In old games, strong warriors could carry around more loot than weak mages, making inventory a way of making the game different between classes. Now, warriors carry the same as mages as rogues.

2. Turn-based combat

Why it's annoying: if you've ever played Civ, you know that turn-based combat is often clunky and time-consuming. Also, AI rarely is any good at turn-based combat and devising novel strategies.

Why it's obsolete: turn-based combat is a relic from board game days and when you had to actually do like long-division to figure out what happened after a combat roll.

Computers nowadays are infinitely faster for doing combat calculations

3. Click to move. Like you see in Diablo 3.

Why it's annoying: Not as good as WASD movement, you can accidently order your character to move instead of attack.

Why it's obsolete: Click to move was basically a result of tech limitations which forced isometric perspectives for RPG games. Now, you have 3d cameras.

4. Adjusting stats like STR, AGI in games

Why it's annoying: you don't really see much of an effect in the game, and skill trees are better

Why it's obsolete: because modern games have long campaigns. You can find yourself 15 hours in and unable to beat a level because of a choice you made at the start of the game when you didn't know what was going on.

taiwwa

1.

Allow the player to choose what to bring can add to the game by allow them to play more there way.

2.

I have yet to see a combat system that reach the control of combat as turn base does. The control leads to a much more detail and fun combat.

I think that the think of "Turn base is old and not needed" is obsolete.

3.

click to move, I have nothing. This is gone but for a few games.

4.

What is wrong with states.

Skill trees are fine but they narrow down what type of role you character can have.

Stats give players more control on how they want to play.

What is Obsolete:

FPS with only health packs healing only and old FPS level designed:

These two go together. The older FPS were not about good shootouts but enduring many poor shootouts. They can do some much more with current system.

#5 Posted by Byshop (11224 posts) -

1. Inventory management.

Why it's annoying: It ends up just being "busywork" for the gamer after a fight.Many games also go overboard, purposely giving you tons of weapons which are worthless, instead of just giving gold.

Why it's obsolete: Because inventory doesn't make you richer like it did before. In old games, strong warriors could carry around more loot than weak mages, making inventory a way of making the game different between classes. Now, warriors carry the same as mages as rogues.

2. Turn-based combat

Why it's annoying: if you've ever played Civ, you know that turn-based combat is often clunky and time-consuming. Also, AI rarely is any good at turn-based combat and devising novel strategies.

Why it's obsolete: turn-based combat is a relic from board game days and when you had to actually do like long-division to figure out what happened after a combat roll.

Computers nowadays are infinitely faster for doing combat calculations

3. Click to move. Like you see in Diablo 3.

Why it's annoying: Not as good as WASD movement, you can accidently order your character to move instead of attack.

Why it's obsolete: Click to move was basically a result of tech limitations which forced isometric perspectives for RPG games. Now, you have 3d cameras.

4. Adjusting stats like STR, AGI in games

Why it's annoying: you don't really see much of an effect in the game, and skill trees are better

Why it's obsolete: because modern games have long campaigns. You can find yourself 15 hours in and unable to beat a level because of a choice you made at the start of the game when you didn't know what was going on.

taiwwa

---> Gaming Conventions Which Are Obsolete But Still Stick Around

Lemme think. Oh, I know. E3!!!! (get it?)

But seriously, I disagree. While I do think there are many elements of design that are anachronistic in modern games, the above list is not an example of anything I think needs to go away. Most of what you list above are just elements of RPGs and PC games, so it sounds like you just want dumbed down console games. Don't worry, publishers will continue to crank these out but that doesn't mean that intelligent and complex games like Xcom, Civ5, the Total War series, Jagged Alliance, etc have to go away.

-Byshop

#6 Posted by Byshop (11224 posts) -

Actually I do have one. RPG Random Battles. I don't know a single RPG that is enhanced by the inclusion of the old Final Fantasy-style random battles. Take two steps, fight. Take four steps, fight. Take one step, fight. The change to being able to see monsters in the world map in turn-based RPGs only improved these games IMHO.

-Byshop

#7 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1730 posts) -

If a so called "obsolete" convention can still work out just fine in a game then I see no reason to get rid of them. For example, there are a few good turn based RPGs that are still around and work just fine for the game. Some elements just work better in one game than it may in another.

But I second what Byshop said about random battles. This is the ONLY gaming convention I can think of that is just bothersome, time consuming, and does not add anything good to any game. Random battles should die.

But as for everything else, I say it depends on the game.

#8 Posted by Byshop (11224 posts) -

If a so called "obsolete" convention can still work out just fine in a game then I see no reason to get rid of them. For example, there are a few good turn based RPGs that are still around and work just fine for the game. Some elements just work better in one game than it may in another.

But I second what Byshop said about random battles. This is the ONLY gaming convention I can think of that is just bothersome, time consuming, and does not add anything good to any game. Random battles should die.

But as for everything else, I say it depends on the game.

Lucky_Krystal

Exactly. Isometric views go along with click to move and that goes along with tactical games. Cramming a 1st person view into a game in which it doesn't belong doesn't make sense. The op's list could just as easily be renamed "Ways that developers dumb down games to make them suitable for console cross-development" and most people would probably agree with it.

-Byshop

#9 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -
I disagree in every point
#10 Posted by Planeforger (15571 posts) -
So...you're basically saying that depth is obsolete in role playing games? Thankfully some smaller developers still disagree with you.
#11 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

So...you're basically saying that depth is obsolete in role playing games? Thankfully some smaller developers still disagree with you. Planeforger

This. What is wrong with having to think while playing a game?

#12 Posted by Kocelot (753 posts) -

i agree.

i really dont care if 'it works fine'..

time to take a step forward. fine for the nostalgia, but for modern day games? no. it feels like im playing a 10$ value game despite it being 50$ or $60.

#13 Posted by Lulekani (2216 posts) -

i agree.

i really dont care if 'it works fine'..

time to take a step forward. fine for the nostalgia, but for modern day games? no. it feels like im playing a 10$ value game despite it being 50$ or $60.

Kocelot
WORD ! Thats Some Hardcore Gaming Gospel Right Thur !
#14 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

i agree.

i really dont care if 'it works fine'..

time to take a step forward. fine for the nostalgia, but for modern day games? no. it feels like im playing a 10$ value game despite it being 50$ or $60.

Kocelot
god no!
#15 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

Actually I do have one. RPG Random Battles. I don't know a single RPG that is enhanced by the inclusion of the old Final Fantasy-style random battles. Take two steps, fight. Take four steps, fight. Take one step, fight. The change to being able to see monsters in the world map in turn-based RPGs only improved these games IMHO.

-Byshop

Byshop

definitely agree on this. I hate random battles

I actually think that standalone cutscenes using the game engine need to go away.

Since you can easily give story elements while retaining control of the character.

#16 Posted by wiouds (5086 posts) -

I actually think that standalone cutscenes using the game engine need to go away.

Since you can easily give story elements while retaining control of the character.

taiwwa

Letting the player control the character during story telling moments need to go and leave moments. They have the power to make better looking scene instead of the ugly camera angle up get by being stuck in the character.

#17 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -
Play xcom and tell me turn based is obsolete.
#18 Posted by Archangel3371 (15391 posts) -
Personally I am just fine with things like turn-based combat, random enemy encounters, item management, etc. so I wouldn't say that they are obsolete myself.
#19 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]So...you're basically saying that depth is obsolete in role playing games? Thankfully some smaller developers still disagree with you. Vari3ty

This. What is wrong with having to think while playing a game?

Play xcom and tell me turn based is obsolete.dvader654
All of these, really. All of the points the OP has brought up are all moot and hardly amount to being 'obsolete'. Just because you don't like certain game elements that require more thought and organization doesn't mean that they're outdated. Streamlining a game is also not always the solution. If I remember correctly, most fans of Mass Effects hated how ME2 was essentially a dumbed-down action-RPG that mostly resembled Gears of War.
#20 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

This. What is wrong with having to think while playing a game?

MadVybz

Play xcom and tell me turn based is obsolete.dvader654
All of these, really. All of the points the OP has brought up are all moot and hardly amount to being 'obsolete'. Just because you don't like certain game elements that require more thought and organization doesn't mean that they're outdated. Streamlining a game is also not always the solution. If I remember correctly, most fans of Mass Effects hated how ME2 was essentially a dumbed-down action-RPG that mostly resembled Gears of War.

This is actually why ME2 was far superior to ME1. Because like you had choices where it really mattered, and didn't have to waste thought energy with choices that did not matter.

#21 Posted by wiouds (5086 posts) -

[QUOTE="MadVybz"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"] [QUOTE="dvader654"]Play xcom and tell me turn based is obsolete.taiwwa

All of these, really. All of the points the OP has brought up are all moot and hardly amount to being 'obsolete'. Just because you don't like certain game elements that require more thought and organization doesn't mean that they're outdated. Streamlining a game is also not always the solution. If I remember correctly, most fans of Mass Effects hated how ME2 was essentially a dumbed-down action-RPG that mostly resembled Gears of War.

This is actually why ME2 was far superior to ME1. Because like you had choices where it really mattered, and didn't have to waste thought energy with choices that did not matter.

The "Level up" system in ME2 provided no way to make a class role different for each character of the same class. There were only one choice that change the character's role and even then it is very limited. More smaller choices that allows for a wider deviation of characters in the same class is better.

ME1 level up system allow for much more different between characters of the same class.

#22 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

[QUOTE="MadVybz"][QUOTE="Vari3ty"] [QUOTE="dvader654"]Play xcom and tell me turn based is obsolete.taiwwa

All of these, really. All of the points the OP has brought up are all moot and hardly amount to being 'obsolete'. Just because you don't like certain game elements that require more thought and organization doesn't mean that they're outdated. Streamlining a game is also not always the solution. If I remember correctly, most fans of Mass Effects hated how ME2 was essentially a dumbed-down action-RPG that mostly resembled Gears of War.

This is actually why ME2 was far superior to ME1. Because like you had choices where it really mattered, and didn't have to waste thought energy with choices that did not matter.

Asterisk

In your opinion.

#23 Posted by taiwwa (251 posts) -

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

[QUOTE="MadVybz"] All of these, really. All of the points the OP has brought up are all moot and hardly amount to being 'obsolete'. Just because you don't like certain game elements that require more thought and organization doesn't mean that they're outdated. Streamlining a game is also not always the solution. If I remember correctly, most fans of Mass Effects hated how ME2 was essentially a dumbed-down action-RPG that mostly resembled Gears of War. wiouds

This is actually why ME2 was far superior to ME1. Because like you had choices where it really mattered, and didn't have to waste thought energy with choices that did not matter.

The "Level up" system in ME2 provided no way to make a class role different for each character of the same class. There were only one choice that change the character's role and even then it is very limited. More smaller choices that allows for a wider deviation of characters in the same class is better.

ME1 level up system allow for much more different between characters of the same class.

Two words: biotic charge.

What's silly about it is that the game adjusts the power of the enemies anyways in relation to your power, so all of teh optimization doesn't really matter. It's not like an MMO where optimization matters over the wide world. You have discrete levels here.

#24 Posted by wiouds (5086 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

This is actually why ME2 was far superior to ME1. Because like you had choices where it really mattered, and didn't have to waste thought energy with choices that did not matter.

taiwwa

The "Level up" system in ME2 provided no way to make a class role different for each character of the same class. There were only one choice that change the character's role and even then it is very limited. More smaller choices that allows for a wider deviation of characters in the same class is better.

ME1 level up system allow for much more different between characters of the same class.

Two words: biotic charge.

What's silly about it is that the game adjusts the power of the enemies anyways in relation to your power, so all of teh optimization doesn't really matter. It's not like an MMO where optimization matters over the wide world. You have discrete levels here.

I am not talking about optimization. I am tlking about having character that play differently while having the same class. You know have character having the same class but their role in combat is not the same.

#25 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think more games should use the mechanics OP stated.
#26 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

To be honest the only gaming convention I can think of that's obsolete but is still around is the lives system.

Lives existed because they were a way for arcade machines to make money. You run out of lives, you put more coin in and start at the beginning of the level (or the very beginning of the game for a lot of cases).

Games today are now multimillion dollar projects (aside from indie projects obviously) and are primarily played in a home environment. While one could argue that lives are in games to hold some sort of challenge, I'd say that there's enough room for ingenuity that allows more challenge through a game's deisgn rather than relying on the player dying a lot. Imagine how infuriating games would be today if they all still carried a lives system.

#27 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

The Life system. It needs to die a hard death.