[QUOTE="taiwwa"]

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.

[/QUOTE]

---> 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

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

[QUOTE="Lucky_Krystal"]

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.

[/QUOTE]

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