Worst mistakes in video games part 2

[BitVyper]

Holy fuck, I'm not the only person who plays Stars! That made me happy.

Anyway, I was playing Azure dreams again today, and I noticed a really strange mistake-ish thing. See, in the Japanese version of the game, it was possible to have a homosexual relationship. That was removed from the English localization, but what wasn't removed was this. The bit where the fortune teller comes right out and says "guess what, you're gay, and the perfect man for you is that rich snobby guy."

I mean, obviously it didn't just slip through the cracks, since someone actually sat down and translated it, and it can't be a laziness thing, since they were willing to change so much other crap to hide the fact that Ghosh was ever a possibility, so what the fuck?

[Mirai Gen]

Respond to one thing:

DMC is one of my favourite game series, so I can assure you I know damn well how each controls. The controls have always been the same; x to jump, square to shoot, triangle to use devil arms, R1 to lock on, L1 to DT. The only buttons that have ever changed has been giving circle some function (evasion in 2, style button from 3 onwards) and weapon swappers on the triggers. Dante controls no differently from 1 to 2 to 3, the only changes are some new moves here and there.

Um, actually, if I remember rightly, DMC1 and 2/3 had some buttons switched around. I remember square and X doing the same thing for guns, and for some reason circle was the melee button while triangle was jump.

But after a few button swaps, yeah, they haven't changed at all.

Plus this is me talking and I'm pretty much 2 for 2 when it comes to "Way too into DMC/Transformers."

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

I honestly thought they'd always been the same. If I am in fact talking out of my arse then fair enough, I retract that part of my statement. Either way they still play the same, so the actual function of each button is kind of a moot point anyway.

EDIT; And while I'm in this thread I suppose I should actually contribute something; Mercenaries 2, rocket launchers. I am now certain that they are the only thing in this game that can actually kill you. I've been shot out of choppers 100ft up and fallen to the earth below and still had 20% health, I've been shot point blank by tank shells and not only survived, but gone on to steal the damn tank, I've detonated my own C4 while I was standing on it and got up and walked away and I've been shot multiple times with heavy machinegun fire while already at 2% and it hasn't fazed me. But if you get hit by a an RPG then you're fucked.

WHY??!

And it's made exponentially worse when every single enemy base you come to has at least 2 or more buildings which spawn infinite RPGers who can fire in 360 degrees out of any window of the buildings and more often than not you are forced to get right up to the damn things in order to destroy them.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Holy fuck, I'm not the only person who plays Stars! That made me happy.

Oh boy did I have a lot of fun with that one when I was younger.

Tried it again, a few months back, and realized that it was the worst case of spreadsheets in space I'd ever seen. That combined with the fact that with a little research I learned that the game had been pretty much 'solved' mathematically made me realize it's actually kind of a shitty game. It did have some good ideas, though.

[ironymaster]

Hmmm, another mistake... I would have to say that a mistake is Tidas from FFX. I couldn't stand that whiner...

[Zilla]

Oh, Quest 64, the mistake of not keeping the difficulty consistant. I will admit they did a great job of not falling to the common RPG trap of making the game too easy past a certain point...

Actually, the more I think about it... Quest did a good job with the difficulty. I think perhaps the flaw was...

...

Okay, wow, finally really giving it thought, there wasn't really anything wrong with Quest 64. The story could have used some improvement, but the engine and learning curve were brilliant.

[phil_]

There's a potential problem on the horizon that seems like a big mistake. Games with multiplayer, but only online multiplayer. GTA4 comes to mind. I understand the logic behind it -- four people playing on a couch means three people who potentially haven't bought the game -- but that doesn't mean I have to like it. In this age of "anything to make sure everyone who plays buys his own copy," I fear we may regress back to the single paddle Atari set-up.

But, that's just me being paranoid and annoyed that Monster Hunter 3 probably won't have local multiplayer.

[ironymaster]

I'll tell you what I think is a huge mistake, DS games coming out with wifi. Now for multiplayer games thats okay. But when the games a single player and yet requires you to have wifi to get the good stuff, then it becomes a piece of shit.

[Zilla]

I agree that games shouldn't have online-only multiplayer. Shadowrun? only online. Not that Shadowrun was even that good of a game, but it's still a problem that there's no local multiplayer.

[ironymaster]

I just have a problem in general where online or multiplayer in general is the only way to unlock content sometimes. Its absurd... The reason Final Fantasy Tactics A2 was so great IMO was because it didn't require you to get anything in multiplayer.