Gaming cliches you can't stand

[Rafae]

- That there's an age you should stop gaming at.... yeah no.

 

- That they're too cartoony and 'kiddish' despite all the advancements made in technology over the last ten years

[Leftist Bastard]

Does anyone outside of cranky old people still believe that?

[Rafae]

Does anyone outside of cranky old people still believe that?

Probably not but it's still a cliche I can't stand

[Happy Hunter]

-Jump scares in horror games. Well I don't dislike jump scares entirely just when they're an overused device every 10-15 minutes. Though I think suspense is far creepier than being greeted with a jump scare.

They have to be there to some extent though (in my opinion). You need them to keep you on edge. They should be sparing though. But when they're pulled off I think they can work well. Resident Evil 2's Lickers and Tyrant had some great ones.

 

• DLC. Yeah, unrealistic, can't have everything, etc. But I preferred when we just got full games; not having everything cut just to sell it later on.

 

• Open world games where you can't roam around after you finish the story. Like, your character dies or whatever. In RDR at least you got to continue from the son. It doesn't happen as much these days to be honest, but it used to happen a lot where your character gets killed at the end, then you can't roam around anymore.

 

• An unwillingness to make sounds, music, characters, etc. dramatically over the top, in a kind of cheesy-but-good way. Games taking themselves too seriously, I guess. Stuff like in
  - exaggerated screams lol, that kind of thing. To me, it works in a game, you're not meant to be taking it too seriously.

 

• Similar to above in a way - forgettable sounds, characters, etc.

 

• Auto-saving systems where you can hardly even tell when it's saving/if its saved. Saving should be a more marked thing.

 

• Open games being made more linear. Like Hitman, that got more closed off to me, less options. Not sure how it's doing now though, to be fair.

 

Basically, most stuff that's in games beyond PS2/PS1-era stuff.

[Leftist Bastard]

 

-Jump scares in horror games. Well I don't dislike jump scares entirely just when they're an overused device every 10-15 minutes. Though I think suspense is far creepier than being greeted with a jump scare.

They have to be there to some extent though (in my opinion). You need them to keep you on edge. They should be sparing though. But when they're pulled off I think they can work well. Resident Evil 2's Lickers and Tyrant had some great ones.

 

• DLC. Yeah, unrealistic, can't have everything, etc. But I preferred when we just got full games; not having everything cut just to sell it later on.

 

 

 

• Open games being made more linear. Like Hitman, that got more closed off to me, less options. Not sure how it's doing now though, to be fair.

 

Basically, most stuff that's in games beyond PS2/PS1-era stuff.

 

Why's the assumption here that the content would have been in the game in the PS2/PS1 era? a lot of this stuff genuinely gets made post-launch.

 

Hitman 2016 is the best Hitman game since Blood Money if not the best in the franchise imo

[Happy Hunter]

Why's the assumption here that the content would have been in the game in the PS2/PS1 era? a lot of this stuff genuinely gets made post-launch.

I guess. A lot of it doesn't though. Like, half of GTA V's aircraft are all stuff that was cut. I remember RE5's DLC was stuff cut from the game. Happens a lot.

 

Some of it is big stuff though. GTA IV's TBOGT, RDR Undead Nightmare - that kind of stuff I like, I guess.

 

Hitman 2016 is the best Hitman game since Blood Money if not the best in the franchise imo

Might have to give that a try then. I stopped off after Hitman Absolution. It wasn't that bad to me, but it just felt too limited. Blood Money was the best for me; just so open, so many ways to finish stuff.

 

If Hitman 2016 is more like that, I might just get that.

[Audi]

 

-snip-

 

 

Why's the assumption here that the content would have been in the game in the PS2/PS1 era? a lot of this stuff genuinely gets made post-launch.

 

Hitman 2016 is the best Hitman game since Blood Money if not the best in the franchise imo

 

 

 

Might have to give that a try then. I stopped off after Hitman Absolution. It wasn't that bad to me, but it just felt too limited. Blood Money was the best for me; just so open, so many ways to finish stuff.

 

 

 

If Hitman 2016 is more like that, I might just get that.

 

 

Hitman 2016 is really, really good. The story is fantastic. The only common complaint is against the episodic approach they took instead of releasing the full game at once (Season 1 is all out now though, but season 2 is in limbo atm) and the "filler" Elusive targets and Featured Contracts.

 

I can see how Absolution feels linear as the game pretty much forces you to do things a set way with very little freedom in some missions. The story itself wasn't bad imo, just lacks replayability.

[Zello]

Being able to see through walls in order to detect enemies

 

Minor character that you don't care about dies and the game makes it a big deal

[chronic lumbago]

 

Forced multiple endings that muddle the narrative after the game didn't bother with any branching choices throughout the story whatsoever. More often than not, in cases like these, multiple endings feel phoned in and arbitrary rather than something that actually elevates the storytelling.

 

 

The protagonist/major supporting characters dying without the deaths being earned or properly capitalized on afterwards - the writers using the emotional response as a crutch.

 

AI rebellion/robot rights. Please, please can we get a story about AIs without them rising against us? It's like 99% of sci-fi franchises dealing with AIs eventually veer in that territory. Most of them didn't even need to. Do we play, for example, Fallout for that when there are tons of better genre fiction dealing with the subject?

 

Tacked on RPG-lite upgrade trees and superfluous cumbersome scavenger hunt systems.

 

 

Sorry to force it down GTAForums' throat again but Nier Automata is the exact opposite of what you just said

Regarding the backtracking, the game requires you to do at least 3 playthroughs. The third playthrough is a sequel to the events. The second, you play through the same story with a different POV, with a different character and it's different enough to not be a simple repetition of the first playthrough. Other games with NG+ let you play through the exact same thing, this is definetly not the case here.

 

 

/morning post

 

[luisniko]

Here's another cringe:

 

Striving too much for realism and immersion until it defeats the efficiency and effectiveness of a feature.

 

Example: sluggish realistic body animation, GTAO's quality of vehicle delivery, empty world in post-ending (despite of being massively complained when this happened, I'm surprised that there are still some people who want a game to be empty/no enemy post-ending just because it's more 'believable')

[Furry_Monkey]

My biggest...

 

"Well it's the release date and, as promised, here's your amazing awesome shiny new game!"

 

"We'll fix it later."

Edited July 2, 2017 by Furry_Monkey

[Fireman]

The illusion that developers have that better animated, longer or more complex Quick Time Events make QTE less lame.

[Leftist Bastard]

Being able to see through walls in order to detect enemies

 

Minor character that you don't care about dies and the game makes it a big deal

Lol reminds me of that one Russian guy in Battlefield 3 who has an emotional death scene but you don't even know his name.

 

The illusion that developers have that better animated, longer or more complex Quick Time Events make QTE less lame.

I really liked Darksiders II for this. It released during the height of the QTE craze AND it was a hack and slash game. You'd think the game would force you to mash square every cut scene but they're so sparse its kind of great.

[KilnerLUFC]

- That they're too cartoony and 'kiddish' despite all the advancements made in technology over the last ten years

 

Genuinely asking for an elaboration on this point as I don't get what it means specifically? Do you hate cartoony games, or...?

 

 

A few points on stuff already mentioned:

 

Jump Scares - For me, my first case of this was in Resident Evil, when you'd be calmly walking down a hallway and boom, some zombie smashes through the window and right into your path. I believe if done correctly and not used every 5/10 minutes, then it's still as perfect as the first time. Dead Space is one of the 'scariest' games I've played in years, and part of that is thanks to the jump scares. The feeling of isolation aboard a space craft with all these alien enemies around you, to have them jump out at you genuinely has sh*t me up many times...especially playing the game in a dark room with headphones on...

 

QTE's - Again, if done very minimally, or only for certain times within a game, then they don't bother me, but it irks me when a game feels like a story-driven, linear movie where your main participation is some QTE sections...The Tomb Raider reboot, whilst a good game to play through, really bothered me with how much just felt like you had to repeat a section over and over just because of a mis-pressed button...Jesus H Christ the amount of times I died by getting impaled in the river...and then the ending of the game too, what a serious let down.

 

Missions With Percentage Scores - Assassin's Creed 3+ and GTAIV/V, here's looking at you as the main offenders for me on this. I didn't mind GTAIV as much as it only featured in the DLC and felt like a way or just making a short game feel more lengthy, but V really f*cked me off with it all, and so did AC3 onwards. You're given this open world where you feel free to do what you want, how you want...but here's the catch, if you don't do it to the letter the way the devs want you to, you're marked down for it. No, it doesn't make me want to replay the mission, nor does it make it feel more challenging, it's just a sh*tty game mechanism that needs to f*ck off. I'm the type of gamer that if given a non-linear game, I like to think I can tactically assess the task at hand and feel rewarded for achieving the goal in my own way, my own thinking...not be marked down because of it. Again, sh*tty mechanism that needs to f*ck off.

 

Zombies - Such an overused cliche now, bore off. I don't mind 'infected' enemies as such, as it gives them some options on how to make them act, but zombies act in the same way in every single game.

 

DLC - Yes, we were told to stray away from this in this topic, but just my 2 cents. It's become such a cliche business model now that more and more games are been released with less content now, or less rewarding gameplay as most of the upgrades are tucked away into DLC. Timesplitters 2...imagine that as a game this day and age, you'd be given 5 maps and 20 MP characters and the rest would have been DLC only...I always reference this game when this issue pops up as it perfectly sums up an era when devs cared more about the consumer than there wallet...the game was massive due to the insane amount of characters that had to be unlocked via gameplay...that sh*t doesn't exist anymore...Games have become less rewarding...

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

-Jump scares in horror games. Well I don't dislike jump scares entirely just when they're an overused device every 10-15 minutes. Though I think suspense is far creepier than being greeted with a jump scare.

They have to be there to some extent though (in my opinion). You need them to keep you on edge. They should be sparing though. But when they're pulled off I think they can work well. Resident Evil 2's Lickers and Tyrant had some great ones.

 

 

 

Like I said I don't have an issue with jumpscares themselves. Maybe I should've worded it differently, but as KilnerLUFC said only when they're done properly.

 

I even think they work well in games you wouldn't expect to have them. However when games rely on them solely (like Layers Of Fear) they just become tiresome and predictable.

[HaythamKenway]

 

Being able to see through walls in order to detect enemies

 

Minor character that you don't care about dies and the game makes it a big deal

Lol reminds me of that one Russian guy in Battlefield 3 who has an emotional death scene but you don't even know his name.

Oh god, Battlefield 3.

 

That game, as a whole, was the god of cliché manifesting itself in the form of a video game.

[Vanzant]

Shotguns that fire dust clouds that are only going to damage a player if they are within 1 foot. That's not how shotguns work.

 

Aiming down the sight of a Mac-11 does f*ck nothing for you ever....

[livejoker]

It's not a cliché but more of a dev's attitude towards a series or game. I hate how, for a good example, Saints Row goes for balls-out insanity. Like, I get it, you'll never be on the same level of GTA so may as well put me in a flying panda suit while shooting girls in skirts. Saints Row has some hilarious moments in its series but the "out there" stuff...ehhhhh, don't force it. It's a fun game when they go for humor but when they just want to blow your mind it sucks.

GTA V is a prime example but others I can throw in are Skate 3 (looking at my game collection). I'll discuss Skate 3 as you'll all make the GTA V connection easily. I hate how in Skate 3 everything is a "skate" heaven despite being a city and that you're this skate lord that everyone respects yet doesn't say a single word. I hate how Skate 1 was basically some guy with a camera man just skating, doing tricks and being recognized for that but now in Skate 3 your name is already made. I hate how games give you the "power" of being well-known/big boss yet you're still out there doing the day-to-day sh*t work. GTA V, most notably GTA:O, you're this multi-million drug lord yet you still out there getting products. Do like Assassins Creed where I can send AI on some buying runs (when you can send your ships to do stuff).

Most war games that uses fictional middle-eastern settings with generic AI's. I've yet to be blown away by a campaign from a battlefield-like game (cause they all focus on multiplayer now anyway).

Lastly, racing games that give me the keys to the latest 3.5 million dollars worth Lamborghini and ruining the clutch at 250 miles an hour. I want to earn that car, goddamnit, not be handed it just for one mission. Looking at you, Forza Horizon 3. I want to BUY that car to play that mission but I know I'm probably the only FH3 player that wants that. Like...I hate being given stuff. I want it to be earned.

Good thread, got me thinking about how many things I hate about gaming.

Edited July 5, 2017 by livejoker

[BenMitchell90]

Games that don't give you the option from the pause menu to restart the mission, or load your last checkpoint. EVERY game nowadays should have this option. There's nothing worse than running into a glitch at the worst possible moment and watching your character get stuck in a wall or something, and realizing that there's no way to restart the level short of resetting the game or throwing grenades to try and kill yourself so it reloads. And even if the game doesn't glitch, this can still be really annoying. Say you're playing a mission in GTA V, and accidentally do something to break your immersion (yeah I like to immerse myself in games, shut up) and want to reload before that mistake. Well, you can't. Your only option is to suicide or do something else to fail the mission.

 

And on a somewhat similar note, games that only offer a single save file. Ubisoft in particular has been guilty of this lately. Let's say you wanna start a new playthrough of Assassin's Creed: Syndicate but want to hold onto your old file. Well, you can't. Gotta start a new one. And (unless I'm missing something) you can't even delete your file from the game itself! No, you've gotta exit out to your console's dash and delete your file from there.

[The Dedito Gae]

^^That doesn't count as a cliche, it's more of a gaming peeve.

 

 

Following on Mr. Pink's post, i don't mind attractive/idealized gaming characters, but women on videogames wearing unpractical clothes for the sake of "sexiness" just annoys the sh*t out of me.

Catwoman in the Arkham games, i know the game and character proportions aren't supposed to be realistic, but jesus i hate high heels so much, it's impossible to run on them and they look awful. No burglar would wear those.

 

No agency on earth would make their agents wear this gear.

[luisniko]

I don't know if this is cliche or peeve, but this happens usually in a (non-fantasy) shooter games and it makes me cringed when I see a character with a background that supposedly prepared them a skill in melee combat, yet they can't do anything other than shooting their guns or throwing a punch like someone who never learned martial art would do.

[chronic lumbago]

Good god, Uncharted 2 has hands down the absolutely most cliche and generic main villain I've EVER seen in a video game. I have yet to see a more obvious bad guy than him.

 

Leads a mercenary group? Check.

Muscles? Check.

Badass scars all over the face? Check.

Weird accent? Check.

Cliche dialogue? Check.

Tries to rise to power and take over the world? Check.

Russian? Check.

Wants to be immortal? Check.

 

Uncharted is overrated as f*ck. Not a bad series with a strong main cast (Nate, Chloe, Sully, reporter lady) but I can't look over the generic mercenary enemies, cliche villains and some action scenes. Not to mention the games are incredibly short. So far I'd give it a solid 7/10. Drake is a great character though.

[BenMitchell90]

^ Haha, as much as I love Uncharted, I've gotta agree that they made Lazarevic so over-the-top that it's really kind of amusing. I actually remember reading an ad for the game in OPM way back when it came out, and it had bios for the characters, and the combination of Lazarevic's scarred, bald scowling mug and the mention that he idolized Hitler and Pol Pot made me think "Are they f*cking serious with this guy"? Haha. They might as well have given the dude horns and fangs.

 

Anyway, I've got a few more.

 

* Forced stealth sections, especially if it's instafail. This was especially bad back in the early '00s when seemingly every developer in the business looked at Metal Gear Solid and said "Hey, I can do that!", but it still pops up from time to time today (That damn City of Pain mission in Far Cry 4... I've played it twice, once supporting Sabal and once supporting Amita, and my memory's foggy but in one of the variants you have to save hostages or something and it's instafail... it sucked). This can be done well, but 9 times out of 10 it just grinds the game to a halt for an irritating segment that just doesn't fit.

 

* Rubberbanding in racing games (or more accurately for me, since I don't play racing games, games with racing segments). You know, where the competition slows down if you're sucking and magically speeds up if you're winning. If I'm losing, I probably deserve to lose. If I'm racing flawlessly, I should be ahead of the rest of the pack. Quit cheating.

 

* Unskippable cutscenes. I don't mind if cutscenes are only unskippable the first time you watch them, as I watch cutscenes anyway, but after that the option to skip them should be there. Especially if it's a damn lengthy cutscene you can't skip that's placed right before a tough segment or boss battle. (Yeah, Kingdom Hearts, I'm looking at you... the re-releases fixed this problem, but I still have nightmares about the original release.)

 

* Pretty sure this has already been brought up, but shoehorning online features into a primarily single-player game. Are you playing AC Unity and wanna play more French Revolution-oriented missions? Oh, you'll have to play these weird half-assed "Brotherhood" missions that are meant to be played in co-op. Yeah you can play them solo, but we didn't bother to scale the missions accordingly, so some of them are stupid-hard on your own. It's cool that they included co-op, but IMO making missions that could have been awesome parts of the story and regulating them to the Brotherhood missions sucks. Or, even worse, making some features exclusive to the online, when there's no reason for them not to be in single-player as well. I don't think I have to name any names here.

[Algonquin Assassin]

* Unskippable cutscenes. I don't mind if cutscenes are only unskippable the first time you watch them, as I watch cutscenes anyway, but after that the option to skip them should be there. Especially if it's a damn lengthy cutscene you can't skip that's placed right before a tough segment or boss battle. (Yeah, Kingdom Hearts, I'm looking at you... the re-releases fixed this problem, but I still have nightmares about the original release.)

 

Whilst this annoys me too not having an option to pause them is also annoying. With every new game I buy the first thing I usually do is test out whether the cut scenes can be paused or not. I always cringe and squint my eyes for some reason.

 

The first time I played GTA IV I accidentally hit X on my PS3 controller missing out on the entire opening sequence so after I had to make a new save to watch it again cause OCD.

 

But yeah un-skippable cut scenes are a nuisance especially in games when you've fail a mission, chapter or whatever and you're forced to sit through it again.

[Edward Nashton]

I've got one: all Roman/ancient Greek characters speaking in British or occasionally American accents instead of accents that sound like they could be Latin or Greek. Examples: The original God of War games, all of them take place in ancient Greece - everyone speaks in English sounding accents, except Kratos, who speaks in pissed off asshole. Ryse: Son of Rome, I don't remember much but I do recall thinking that whenever there was a scene with more than one Roman in it, each one was trying to out-British the other, it was hilarious.

 

And finally, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and possibly the entire series - The Imperials (the Romans of that universe) almost exclusively speak in American accents - which is strange because all of the other humans speak in an accent appropriate to their race or at least have an explanation within the lore as to why they speak the way they do; most Nords speak in Germanic/Scandinavian sounding accents, Bretons mostly speak in English accents, and it's explained within the lore that the Redguards lost their original language when they migrated to the continent the games take place in, and adopted the local tongue, which is why they don't have African/Arab accents. Maybe Bethesda was trying to make a statement by having the Imperials sound American.

 

This is something I see in movies and TV as well. Maybe they think Latin/Greek accents would be unappealing to audiences for some reason.

 

 

Special shout out to Ubisoft (a French Developer) for giving French characters the most British-ass accents ever in Assassin's Creed: Unity.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Edward Nashton

[Dr. Robotnik]

Open-world games that are jam-packed with instantly hostile enemies. In the supposedly uber-violent GTA and Saints Row games, you can always go for walks and just kill time immersing yourself in the setting; the only one who can start trouble is you. In the Far Cry series, animals of every kind attack you out of nowhere for no reason, and enemy soldiers will randomly drive up to shoot at you even when you control all the territory. In Prototype, just landing too hard on the ground scares the military into sweeping the area and you have to lie low. What's the point of designing an open-world game if you're going to give the player every incentive not to spend time exploring it? There's no reason to play in a sandbox that's booby-trapped with landmines.

[luisniko]

* Rubberbanding in racing games

 

* Unskippable cutscenes.

 

f*ck these two in particular indeed.

[Daz]

I am going to stick to an actual cliché as opposed to game annoyances as this seems to be what a lot of people are posting, as that would be an insane wall of text.

 

All of these below points also relate to movies as well as gaming.

 

One of the biggest ones that always becomes irritating to me is in almost any game where you as a civilian have to take up arms against a foe, the character is ALWAYS some ex super tier 1 spec ops legit operator. Why can't you just be some random mechanic that just so happens to know how to shoot guns well and does a bit of martial arts on the side? Why do you always have to be the max level most dangerous man in the world that has taken early retirement? It's just a lazy way to explain why you are able to take gunshot wounds like they are bug bites and can know how to fly helicopters and operate military equipment. I would love to just be some random dude now and again. To be honest a good target shooter would likely have way more trigger time and knowledge than the average joe soldier anyway.

 

Another is the female badass role. It is pretty much 98% always some forced bullsh*t. It is like nobody could ever dream up an interesting non sexualized character that you can actually respect. What I want is a Ripley, or a Sarah Connor, but what we get is some sh*t talking annoying bitch that thinks she's the sh*t because she knows how to beat up a dude. How can I respect that when they don't even respect their own power and abilities, and just use it to belittle and emasculate all other male characters in the game/movie. In reality what you want is a character that could just as easily be interchanged with a male or female at any point. Then applying that skillset to them so it seems realistic. If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was a cocky asshole like dude kicking women in the c*nt and flipping them off everyone would throw a f*cking fit, but for some reason it is a mainstream way of showing a female has power. When really to me it just seems super cheap and a lazy way to prove their strength.

 

The last one I will mention as otherwise I will go on forever, is the save the family member (usually a daughter or wife/gf). I get tired to f*cking death of having to be forced to have a family to care about in a game, and then I have to save the whiney little sh*t when they never put in any reason for me to care to do it. It is an enabling device to give a valid excuse for you to murder your way through a game, because someone you love is taken. How about just understand you need to justify the gameplay and just say f*ck it? Do what John Wick did. They shot his dog. Or took his car. How can you say those aren't legit reasons too? Who gives a f*ck it's a game? I am more likely to believe an insane assassin cares more about a car or his dog than some kid or wife that they should never even have had in the first place because well, THEY ARE A f*ckING ASSASSIN, why the f*ck would you have a kid or have a wife if you were in that line of work, it is stupid to think you could ever have that. What a crock of sh*t.

 

Anyway, I could go on and on and these are a few that come to mind.

[Leftist Bastard]

Do what John Wick did. They shot his dog. Or took his car. How can you say those aren't legit reasons too? Who gives a f*ck it's a game? I am more likely to believe an insane assassin cares more about a car or his dog than some kid or wife that they should never even have had in the first place because well, THEY ARE A f*ckING ASSASSIN, why the f*ck would you have a kid or have a wife if you were in that line of work, it is stupid to think you could ever have that. What a crock of sh*t.

 

Anyway, I could go on and on and these are a few that come to mind.

Sorry but this shows a complete misunderstanding of John Wick and what the car/dog actually meant to him. I mean, he practically spills it out in one scene:

 

It is about his wife. The dog symbolized the last living piece of her he had left yet people still go ''haha they shot his dog so silly''

[Carbonox]

Boss battles that boil down to dodging the boss' attacks all the way until they do something that renders them vulnerable for a short bit.

 

EDIT:

Here's another cringe:

Striving too much for realism and immersion until it defeats the efficiency and effectiveness of a feature.

Example: sluggish realistic body animation, GTAO's quality of vehicle delivery, empty world in post-ending (despite of being massively complained when this happened, I'm surprised that there are still some people who want a game to be empty/no enemy post-ending just because it's more 'believable')

Also this tbh. Realism can sometimes be fun if done right... but sluggish movements are never fun.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Carbonox