Gaming cliches you are sick of

X

x2

I saw an article like this a while back in GI and I thought it was pretty cool. Basically just list some gaming cliches you'd like to see go away. Some of mine are-

1- Strategy specific bosses, i.e, like in Zelda games. Usually these types of bosses just end up being way too easy once you find the strategy. I personally would love to see more old school style bosses where you could easily spend an hour getting your butt handed to you before finally beating it. Those are much more rewarding, IMO.

2- Overly easy difficulty levels. Not really a cliche, but it is still something I'd like to see less of. I am sort of old school in that I like really challenging games, but a lot todays games are just too easy and forgiving.

3- Interactive cut scenes. This one is pretty new and not many games use it, but I can see it becoming more frequent. I don't know about you all, but I like to just sit back and enjoy cut scenes!

4- Lackluster endings- Again not really a cliche, but an annoyance none the less. It is disappointing putting 30 hours in a game and getting a one minute ending scene, IMO.

That is all I can think of for now, so add some more! I had many more ideas, but now I am drawing blanks :lol
 
I would have mentioned pretty much all of those as well. :D

1. Lack of offline multiplayer. Like some of yours, this is not really a cliche, but it is a rather worrisome trend that is developing. Online is great, but playing a game with some buds in the same room is still optimal.

2. Binary, and arbitrary, paths of "good or evil." Character development and interactivity shouldn't boil down to making one's character a saint or a devil. And to that end, why are all good characters pushovers? Not taking crap from an antagonistic character and fighting for justice shouldn't give me "bad" points. Games that boast "deep RPG elements" shouldn't force one to turn one's character into a stereotype.

I've got more, but I want to think about them before I post them up.

Great topic, BTW.
 
Yep, I agree with both of those, especially number 2. It is definitely becoming overused and cliched! I think it is cool when certain actions affect what ending you will get, but I don't like being forced to be either a saint, or the devil himself ;)

I thought of a few more.

1. Not enough focus put on music/soundtrack. This one bothers me. The one thing all of my favorite games share is that the music is memorable and so good, that it actually enhanced the gameplay and overall feel. For example, the Deku Tree in OOT, the ending sequence in Halo, end fight in Chrono Cross, etc., all of them were really memorable and immersing moments because of the music. I guess this is something that varies from person to person, but it is honestly hard for me to enjoy games with bad music and I wish more dev's would see the importance of it.

2. "Shaky" sights in FPS games. I understand they are just going for realism, but most of the time it is just too overdone and is actually unrealistic. I don't care how darn cold it is, you're not going to shake *that* bad :D

3. Stealth elements in non stealth games. I don't know why, but I really do not like stealthy type game play unless it is an actually stealth game such as MGS. Seems like a lot of games are throwing in some stealth bits these days.

4. This is more of a trend than a cliche, but I am bothered by the lack of platformers today outside of Nintendo systems. I can only think of Ratchet and Clank right now...I'm sure there is a few more, but nothing that stands out. More platformers, less FPS, I say! ;)

That's it for now.
 
I'll probably think of more later, but one for me is a lack of focus on single player nowadays. I only just recently got into online gaming (going on 2 years now) because I was stuck in the dial up era for a loong time, so single player games were the only ones that I had fun with. It's also probably why I love the older systems more than I like this gen and future gens.
 
1. Game sequels that screw up the storyline of the previous title. Especially if you follow the storyline too closely, you'll find all types of flavs. Resident Evil especially. (I.E. Wesker mentions the last time Chris and him met was at the Mansion in RE1? I guess Code Veronica was a day-dream??)

2. Fighting games that make no sense or even attempt to have a storyline. Mortal Kombat once had a storyline, then it turned into whacky adventures of undead Lui Kang? Pfft. Arcana Hearts on PS2 is disturbing, High School girls that have super comestic powers and huge honkers to match their jailbait attiude? I'd rather play Gal Fighters on NGPC, at least they had a purpose and diginity.

3. Games with no online co-op mode. Lego Batman should have had this, if Lego Star Wars Complete Saga did, why not Indiana Jones or Batman??

4. Survival Horror Games with a comedic side. Silent Hill 3 (sorry GM, forgive me) Yet after Heather just experienced a truckload of evil creatures, she acts like a valley girl and laughs it off. Seriously, stick with the program, being a silly whacky Don Knotts in "THE GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN" only works in Luigi's Mansion tyvm.

5. World War 2 games. Good Lord, after playing the demo of Brothers in Arms Hell's Highway. Can we at least try to not remember AGAIN about a war that happens every single year on our consoles and PC? Oh wait, here comes Call of Duty World at War! Stand aside, so we can hear the events of 1943 again....and again...and again......

6. Bald dudes in SUPER HARDCORE ACTION GAMES WITH TOMOHAWK MISSLES AND KUNG FU GRIP!! ALABAMA MANNNN!!!!!! A customer asked me about a game and he tried to describe it and it dawned on me. Fracture, Infamous, Crysis Warhead, Star Wars The Force Unleashed, etc. have one thing in common, a Bald Hero! Seriously, is hair not an option in the future or what? Mohawks seem to be making a comeback (Mercenaries 2) Yet my hero feels cold and naked :(
 
Male lead characters. No offense, of course. I would just like to see more games that have female leads. Like the new Castlevania game! ^_^
 
Great response, Mega! I really agree with number 2 and 5. I almost get a little sick when I see a new FPS set in the WW2 setting, it so frikkin overused. I would like more fantasy settings in FPS games {think PREY, Turok 2, etc.,}.
 
Mai Valentine said:
Male lead characters. No offense, of course. I would just like to see more games that have female leads. Like the new Castlevania game! ^_^
Click to expand...

and bayonetta XD.

i am extremely tired of sports games >_>.... year after year after year after year the same thing... i mean sure there's sequels that present little to nothing new but come on.... just changing some stuff every year is not enough to really make me want to buy them. (i am refering mostly to golf games that my dad buys)

i also think the same about anime-based fighting games that have the potential of having tons of characters but they decide to limit them so the next year they can add those missing characters and get lot of money out of practically the same game. (looking at you naruto).

i also hate version games like pokemon and megaman battle network... why making so many versions >_> if you can just simply do one with everything.... because they just want our money obviously.

i am not against remakes or ports from one last gen console to a new one (i don't like timed exclusives but only when they don't update the version that came out first) but i am against the unnecessary yearly releases and games with divided content just to suck some people's wallets. there are exceptions though (like the ultimate ninja series because it does innovate from 2 to 3, and phoenix wright games because they have a new story and cases every time).
 
MegaDrive20XX said:
1. Game sequels that screw up the storyline of the previous title. Especially if you follow the storyline too closely, you'll find all types of flavs. Resident Evil especially. (I.E. Wesker mentions the last time Chris and him met was at the Mansion in RE1? I guess Code Veronica was a day-dream??)
Click to expand...

Um, Wesker was asking Chris that question as if he had forgotten. That doesn't mean it now replaces the story. Not to mention that it won't be answered until RE5 comes out. It wasn't in complete context. Even if it is a mistake, it's not enough to screw up the entire story.

Otherwise, I agree with everything else you mentioned.
 
When I read the title, I thought it was cliches that people say. Dangit. Because I work with a guy who treats his whole live like he's in a videogame, or in a forum. Very irritating.

I hate games that say the same thing over and over again. Sound bytes suck.
 
The ultimate one would have to be the games that have a final boss battle that takes place in one of the following two methods.

1. In a cutscene/or scene before the fight the party is heavily damaged and they start you off with like less than 1/3 of your total health points to start the fight.
2. The boss exists in multiple phases with multiple health bars, so the fight is extended by over 30-50 minutes because they decide to give him 5 phases. And dont dare die in phase 4, cause you will have to start all over again in phase 1, and did I mention with half your items gone?!

Thats probably the only gripe I have with a majority of the games that I have ended up getting in the past.
 
The obligatory escort mission. ::) If I'm gonna be somebody's babysitter, I expect to be paid by the hour and have a fridge full of goodies.
 
Level Based FPS's.

This kind of ties in with the WWII FPS one someone else mentioned. Nearly every "military" or "tactical" FPS these days claims it "drops you right into the boots of an actual soldier." They all try to have memorable characters and moments, either via cutscenes, in-game real-time action sequences, or the "you can look around, but you can't move, or shoot, or interact with anything," and yet at the same time they all seem to claim completely dynamic battlefields, adaptive AI, combat strategy, and so forth.

But all these games tend to break down into the same formula of cutscenes/briefing, play level, cutscene, and repeat. No game has yet to really break that model and truly put you into the boots of a soldier who experiences both the high intensity of waging war, with the contemplative process of strategizing, without needlessly breaking up the experience via some sort of on-rails interlude or cutscene. Some games say they have dynamic battlefields that can be played in any way the player sees fit, but what this really means is there are 2, maybe 3 ways of completing the level. Either way, missions are broken up into levels with specific objectives and specific ways of reaching those objectives. Nothing is truly dynamic or based around input on behalf of the player, rather the game's success or failure depends upon how well they can lead you through the level they've designed.

Why is it that so many First Person Shooters, particularly ones set in WWII, seem content with rehashing this same model over and over? When will we see a fully flushed out WWII FPS that maintains the player's continuity ala Half-Life II, but opens up the entire world from the get go, one that the player can slowly turn from hostile to friendly by strategically engaging the enemy? Why can't adventure elements be added to the WWII FPS genre, why the insistence on guided actions, scripted events, and cutscene briefings?
 
stealth toilet said:
Level Based FPS's.

This kind of ties in with the WWII FPS one someone else mentioned. Nearly every "military" or "tactical" FPS these days claims it "drops you right into the boots of an actual soldier." They all try to have memorable characters and moments, either via cutscenes, in-game real-time action sequences, or the "you can look around, but you can't move, or shoot, or interact with anything," and yet at the same time they all seem to claim completely dynamic battlefields, adaptive AI, combat strategy, and so forth.

But all these games tend to break down into the same formula of cutscenes/briefing, play level, cutscene, and repeat. No game has yet to really break that model and truly put you into the boots of a soldier who experiences both the high intensity of waging war, with the contemplative process of strategizing, without needlessly breaking up the experience via some sort of on-rails interlude or cutscene. Some games say they have dynamic battlefields that can be played in any way the player sees fit, but what this really means is there are 2, maybe 3 ways of completing the level. Either way, missions are broken up into levels with specific objectives and specific ways of reaching those objectives. Nothing is truly dynamic or based around input on behalf of the player, rather the game's success or failure depends upon how well they can lead you through the level they've designed.

Why is it that so many First Person Shooters, particularly ones set in WWII, seem content with rehashing this same model over and over? When will we see a fully flushed out WWII FPS that maintains the player's continuity ala Half-Life II, but opens up the entire world from the get go, one that the player can slowly turn from hostile to friendly by strategically engaging the enemy? Why can't adventure elements be added to the WWII FPS genre, why the insistence on guided actions, scripted events, and cutscene briefings?
Click to expand...

well Metroid Prime kinda does that but it's not the genre you are looking for.... (nor does it feel like a war game, but more like an atmospheric exploration experience).

so if there was a game like metroid that gives you the liberty of going around as you like but having those FPS elements and that feeling of war i guess it would be an FPS that i would like to buy (though i am happy with metroid as it is XD)
 
stealth toilet said:
Level Based FPS's.

This kind of ties in with the WWII FPS one someone else mentioned. Nearly every "military" or "tactical" FPS these days claims it "drops you right into the boots of an actual soldier." They all try to have memorable characters and moments, either via cutscenes, in-game real-time action sequences, or the "you can look around, but you can't move, or shoot, or interact with anything," and yet at the same time they all seem to claim completely dynamic battlefields, adaptive AI, combat strategy, and so forth.

But all these games tend to break down into the same formula of cutscenes/briefing, play level, cutscene, and repeat. No game has yet to really break that model and truly put you into the boots of a soldier who experiences both the high intensity of waging war, with the contemplative process of strategizing, without needlessly breaking up the experience via some sort of on-rails interlude or cutscene. Some games say they have dynamic battlefields that can be played in any way the player sees fit, but what this really means is there are 2, maybe 3 ways of completing the level. Either way, missions are broken up into levels with specific objectives and specific ways of reaching those objectives. Nothing is truly dynamic or based around input on behalf of the player, rather the game's success or failure depends upon how well they can lead you through the level they've designed.

Why is it that so many First Person Shooters, particularly ones set in WWII, seem content with rehashing this same model over and over? When will we see a fully flushed out WWII FPS that maintains the player's continuity ala Half-Life II, but opens up the entire world from the get go, one that the player can slowly turn from hostile to friendly by strategically engaging the enemy? Why can't adventure elements be added to the WWII FPS genre, why the insistence on guided actions, scripted events, and cutscene briefings?
Click to expand...
Level based scripted shooters based around large set-piece events do have their place in the gaming industry, but I too would like to see a lot more non-linear shooters that aren't broken up into missions. However, I think it would be somewhat difficult to do this in a game like Call of Duty or another WWII shooter. These games are usually spread across several battles, sometimes having months in between them, making it difficult to avoid dividing games into missions. The solution to this, perhaps, is to have one game focus on one particular battle, but I can't think of a way in which you could eliminate levels given the type WWII shooters that are most prevalent today.
 
stealth toilet said:
Level Based FPS's.

This kind of ties in with the WWII FPS one someone else mentioned. Nearly every "military" or "tactical" FPS these days claims it "drops you right into the boots of an actual soldier." They all try to have memorable characters and moments, either via cutscenes, in-game real-time action sequences, or the "you can look around, but you can't move, or shoot, or interact with anything," and yet at the same time they all seem to claim completely dynamic battlefields, adaptive AI, combat strategy, and so forth.

But all these games tend to break down into the same formula of cutscenes/briefing, play level, cutscene, and repeat. No game has yet to really break that model and truly put you into the boots of a soldier who experiences both the high intensity of waging war, with the contemplative process of strategizing, without needlessly breaking up the experience via some sort of on-rails interlude or cutscene. Some games say they have dynamic battlefields that can be played in any way the player sees fit, but what this really means is there are 2, maybe 3 ways of completing the level. Either way, missions are broken up into levels with specific objectives and specific ways of reaching those objectives. Nothing is truly dynamic or based around input on behalf of the player, rather the game's success or failure depends upon how well they can lead you through the level they've designed.

Why is it that so many First Person Shooters, particularly ones set in WWII, seem content with rehashing this same model over and over? When will we see a fully flushed out WWII FPS that maintains the player's continuity ala Half-Life II, but opens up the entire world from the get go, one that the player can slowly turn from hostile to friendly by strategically engaging the enemy? Why can't adventure elements be added to the WWII FPS genre, why the insistence on guided actions, scripted events, and cutscene briefings?
Click to expand...

Play S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
 
How about games where optional bosses are four times harder than the hardest mandatory bosses?

Legend of Dragoon has a boss like that. The Ancient Terror. If you beat him, the game becomes a cake walk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top