What Gaming "Flaws" Are You OK With?



  • You might have noticed that in game reviews certain complaints are common. They might be even more common within reviews for certain types of games. Are there any common complaints that are commonly pointed at games, that you don't mind or even like? Some examples might be a sub-60 FPS frame rate, low poly set pieces or environments, limited voice acting, or strange controls.

    Some common complaints that don't bother me are : long tutorial sections, slow openings, limited voice acting, and long run time.

    For me if a game has unique controls/systems, or it's the first time I've played a game like it, I don't mind a hefty tutorial. I'd rather learn everything up front and have all the techniques required for the game at my disposal than to have them slowly handed out to me. As for slow openings, most of the games I play have really long drawn out opening acts and I'm probably just used to it. But in some circumstances such as in Persona 4, I think that the slow opening helps to set the tone for the town of Inaba before everything gets really crazy, so that you really feel a shift when the game kicks in to gear. When it comes to voice acting, I generally don't like it much in games (at least when it's in English) so I don't mind it being cut out most of the time. And when the voice acting is good and the rare lines add a bit of intensity to scenes. Lastly, I straight up love long games. Generally speaking, If it's not over 60+ hours long I don't want to spend $60 on it. I'll buy games that are shorter, but I do, they better be good. I don't get to buy games that often, so I want the ones I have to be good. I know other people feel daunted by long games, but I prefer them that way.



  • Bad Story, because if story is my number one concern I'll partake of a medium where story is the most important thing versus games where gameplay should come first since that's the point of the medium.



  • I'm cool if a game is easy. Some people cast that fact about like it completely undoes a game's quality, but as long as how it plays is diverse, interesting, and it makes sense for the game to be easy, I don't mind it.



  • Immersion breaking support AI (In other words, Ellie/Sam from the Last of Us and Uncharted 4 respectively)

    I totally get the feeling of being engrossed in something and then see your AI partner seemingly run out in the open, behind an enemy, make noise, then a dialogue line pops up with no one being the wiser absolutely taking you out of the experience.

    This doesn't bother me for two reasons: 1.) It never interferes with my ability to accomplish what I'm trying to do (Scout patrol patterns, plan moves, etc.) and 2.) It has happened to me such few times that it really doesn't stick out much in terms of remembering exact spots in the game where it happens. They don't expose my location/actions and are competent in combat.

    A survivor in Left 4 Dead waking the Witch on the other hand....



  • I’d be fine with a 20fps game if it were at least stable at that rate (but the chances of it being stable if it were 20fps are kinda low haha). I’m also completely fine with a game looking like guttertrash so long as it has a good story or something else as a hook.

    Sequels that do absolutely nothing different except the story get a pass from me as well, but I don’t understand why that’s an issue in story based games to begin with so I don’t know if that counts.



  • I'm fine with very simple camerawork if the sets are artistic and the story is interesting.

    For example, Persona 5 didn't improve upon Person 4 very much in the sense that entire scenes play out with a static camera and multiple characters on screen having a discussion in a line or circle. I've had the opportunity to work with a few very talented storyboard artists and directors who have worked on some major film franchises and nothing annoys this one director more than people all standing in a line with no blocking or orientation within a location.

    However, in Persona it doesn't ruin the experience for me. I like what the characters are saying and the one shot they do provide within the scene is always a beautiful location that oozes with style. I just compare it to something like Yakuza 0 which has camera angles within even sub-story cutscenes (the main story cutscenes are absolutely phenomenal but those are more like movies as opposed to in-game dialogie) and it makes me wish more JRPG games took their scene direction more seriously.

    By contrast, Fallout 4 is an abomination when it comes to camerawork. It had a solid decade to modernize itself and learn from the mistakes that Mass Effect 1 ambitiously made in 2007 where the camera was almost always over the shoulder and on the person speaking or simply just a medium shot of the person speaking. It made the idea of having camera angles during dialogue get a bit stale. However, they improved it so much in Mass Effect 2 and other games like The Witcher 2 and The Witcher 3 have absolutely amazing directing and cinematography (if you can call it that in a video game) during dialogue scenes. But no... Fallout 4 has this choppy choppy camera that jarringly stays on the person talking just like Mass Effect did in 2007 and learned from. If they do add more to the blocking, they will then break fundamental rules like having cuts that are not many degrees apart from one another. I am NOT okay with this. The story is far too bland for such a choppy and lengthy amount of time spent in dialogue.

    Sorry for wall of text



  • @Mbun

    I have to disagree with the statement that gameplay should come first. A gaming console comes with the expectation that we should be playing games with some sort of challenging and fun action-reaction type gameplay, but in the end, video games can be a canvas.

    I mean why can't the story be the most important thing in this medium? Games like Metal Gear Solid V used the medium of video games to completely challenge our expectations of a game when certain story moments occurred

    such as the expectation that you were simply building and micromanaging your base like many games ask you to do, only to be forced to kill a large portion of your army; all people with unique names and roles. That married story and gameplay into an equally important moment.

    My point is that story and gameplay aren't necessarily always separate things and only personal values can determine which one is most important.



  • I think the worst for me is any referral to certain design or creative choices as "archaic" or "outdated" when the design choice in question was never solely a result of technical limitations of the time. It could be something like giving the player limited saves or implementing a lives system, or even worse, a game simply choosing to have tactical or turn-based combat. I've honestly noticed some drastic changes to the average gamers tolerance and patience over the last decade or so, and not in a good way.

    "Come on, this shouldn't be a thing now. It's tweeenty seeeventeeen" (Well done Sir, you know the year)



  • I can't really generalize that, like in a turn based JRPG or so a stable framerate is not as important as a game that requires you to dodge attacks actively. A simple hack & slay doesn't need the tightest controls like you'd want them in a game were precise aiming is needed.
    Well I guess graphical complaints are something I can usually overlook, some muddy textures on walls or the ground, stuff popping in in the distance etc.
    And of course the complaints that always come from a certain type of game journos, this game is racist, this game is sexist, this game is not inclusive, really if anything this can convince me to buy a game I might have skipped otherwise, like HuniePop, never have been disappointed by that approach so far.



  • @Brannox said:

    Immersion breaking support AI (In other words, Ellie/Sam from the Last of Us and Uncharted 4 respectively)

    It's fine for those games, but playing Resident Evil 5 with your partner wasting all your ammo and healing items and having to baby them through tense combat situations kills the fun for you. That's one you definitely need a friend for instead.

    @Mr-M said:

    Sequels that do absolutely nothing different except the story get a pass from me as well, but I don’t understand why that’s an issue in story based games to begin with so I don’t know if that counts.

    Hard agreed. The obsession to innovate drives me crazy sometimes when a game is pretty much already perfect before and they radically change the next entry for the sake of appearing fresh and new. Sometimes I just like something the way it is and want another slice of that!

    @GoTaco said:

    I'm fine with very simple camerawork if the sets are artistic and the story is interesting.
    However, in Persona it doesn't ruin the experience for me.

    Persona is already doing so much elsewhere it doesn't need that added touch, but I see lots of JRPGs suffering from this sorta thing, and when you compare them to stuff like Xenoblade Chronicles you realize how important that stuff on top of good voice acting is to engaging you in a scene.

    A gaming console comes with the expectation that we should be playing games with some sort of challenging and fun action-reaction type gameplay,

    There's many forms of gameplay, doesn't have to be action focused, just has to be interesting. If the gameplay is simply a bland means to rushing you through a story, you might as well be watching a movie or tv series. Many story focused games have been turned into these actually, and of course back when Uncharted first started blowing up everyone was talking about "watching Uncharted" with their significant other/friends. Playing it? Who cares! What made it good had nothing to do with being a video game and that's the point when I say you really might as well just have made a movie instead. Gameplay needs to always add something to the overall package, and in games with great stories that blend them together with their gameplay like your example, that's even better and not at all what I'm talking about.

    @Torigasa-Reta said:

    the complaints that always come from a certain type of game journos, this game is racist, this game is sexist, this game is not inclusive

    Anytime I read something like that I just think "Okay, make your own game then." The game they're commenting on wasn't their vision, probably isn't marketed towards them, and they often don't take the time to understand why things in the game are as they are. Hell, this extends to localization when they have to change beer to something else cause the underage kids who grow up in this wartorn fantasy world were drinking beer. I get why you don't want to promote drinking to kids and need to change it, but don't demonize the original version for having something that'd make sense in the context of their world with different laws, rules, and culture. You didn't grow up in the world they did. You don't know what it's like. It floors me that people can not make a huff over fantasy racism (towards races that don't exist) and separate that from reality in these types of settings, but they lose it over a character wearing a skimpy outfit that's only "skimpy" by the standards of the current day world we live in now.



  • @Mbun I play primarily by myself, plus my interests are very skewed, so situations like you describe I don't run into. I DO get your example (which is one reason why I hate Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, but that's a different discussion), but it's not something I personally come across.

    Also, there is a difference between immersion breaking (what I describe) and gameplay hampering (what you describe)



  • Bad characters. Doesn't matter how good your gameplay is, if the characters are annoying or poorly written...

    alt text

    Also, fanservice.
    I'm not talking some light shit like the "pafu pafu" running gag in DQ games... more like when an entire game is based around fanservice, like Senran Kagura, Ar Tonelico Qoga, Neptunia, etc.



  • @El-Shmiablo said in What Gaming "Flaws" Are You OK With?:

    Bad characters. Doesn't matter how good your gameplay is, if the characters are annoying or poorly written...

    alt text

    Also, fanservice.
    I'm not talking some light shit like the "pafu pafu" running gag in DQ games... more like when an entire game is based around fanservice, like Senran Kagura, Ar Tonelico Qoga, Neptunia, etc.

    That sounds like "flaws" you aren't ok with.



  • I can overlook pretty much everything as long as the gameplay is good and the framerate is (more or less) stable.



  • @Mbun said in What Gaming "Flaws" Are You OK With?:

    Bad Story, because if story is my number one concern I'll partake of a medium where story is the most important thing versus games where gameplay should come first since that's the point of the medium.

    Depends on the game, an action game like Bayonetta or platformer like Sonic Mania, sure, but if I'm playing an RPG, I need a lot more there than just game play

    There is no reason that gaming can't be a medium where story is important. I'd never have finished the Mass Effect trilogy if not for the story and characters



  • @ACardAttack So you're saying if the gameplay is good it doesn't matter. Glad we agree.



  • @Mbun I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I guess my question is the same as the people above. Why do you feel that a game can't have story as its most important element? I'm not judging, but I'm simply curious and think that it's an interesting view. Video games are made out of so many components, be it interactive, visual or audible. A good story doesn't have to be passive either. It can be part of the gameplay.

    OT:
    I'm usually not bothered by long loading times. In some games it can even provide a nice moment of respite.



  • I'm honestly okay with a lot. Most flaws don't even stand out to me until everyone on the internet bitches about it.

    Its easier for me to state what is a must.

    No story usually means zero investment on my part. (of course there are some exceptions). But when i feel like i'm just playing a game to play it with no attachment to the events taking place or characters involved then I feel like i'm just wasting my time.



  • @Quecken said:

    Why do you feel that a game can't have story as its most important element?

    Already listed my reasons, mainly that other mediums exist that can provide a purely story based experience without bogging the audience down with wading through unfun gameplay to view it.

    A good story doesn't have to be passive either. It can be part of the gameplay.

    Again, if it's not passive and is part of the gameplay, then you've made your gameplay interesting, at which point you at least have decent gameplay. My post was saying I don't need a game to have a great story as long as it has interesting/engaging gameplay. Story is an extra for me when it comes to games, not a necessity. Think of every arcade type game you've ever played. Pac-Man doesn't need story. Space Invaders doesn't need story. Downwell doesn't need story. It's not necessity for making video games enjoyable for me. Not saying there isn't games that come out that I wish had stronger or more focused stories, but rather I can easily forgive the lack of story if the rest of the package is solid, because my expectations for a video game differ from my expectations from a movie or television series or comic book.



  • @Mbun

    Gameplay has to be enjoyable, but doesn't mean it is the top billing. Mass Effect is okay gameplay, but I wouldn't finish it without the story and characters, that is what I'm saying.

    Story can be a big draw, and can draw over the gameplay. It's why I have little interest in Zelda BOTW, I'm sure the gameplay is really good, but I hear the story is lacking.