Mechanics in video games you wish would just stop existing

>party based game
>one character is a total meatshield/defensewhore
>there is no way to redirect attacks/damage to him
What's the point then?

Attached: 1561813861939.png (385x470, 395.71K)

What are some examples, user?

I gave you an example.
Here's another one though since you asked:
>there is a finite amount of points to delegate on skills/stats
>there is no way to reset them
>there is no way to obtain more and the stupid decisions you made at the start of the game are now locked to your character until the game is over

>I'm hurt.... bad

how would you have reacted Zig Forums?

I meant game examples of what you mentioned.

Oh, well you can take most JRPGs for instance. Most of them have some sort of party-mechanic and at least one big burly fucker who's got 50% more HP than everyone else. This individual is usually a fat fuck who wears heavy armor, is slow as dick but his defense is through the roof.

Take Final Fantasy

>collect-a-thon
>some collectables in earlier levels need you to use tools you only get in later levels to reach them
fucking hate this

Attached: 1590000180332.jpg (615x825, 80.14K)

Not him, but I know what you mean. Older CRPGs did this a lot. Give you these really heavy-duty knights with a massive shield and armor as brick-thick but there was no ways to "taunt" and there is no aggro-mechanic so now you've got this big meat-ball that does no damage.

I agree. It's suppose to add "replayability" but it's not like it's worth replaying until you have all the mechanics anyway so at best you get to go back there when the game is done or almost done. It feels like padding because the devs didn't want to make more levels.

Turn-based. I wish it would stop existing, it’s lazy and boring.

Final Fantasy has had rows and aggro priority tied to the party order since the first game, user. You put your tanks at the top/in the front row.

I am on the other side. I hate it when potentially interesting games burden you wish "mash X until bored" mechanics. At that point I'd rather just take my time.

They have, but they don't now. And that's what bothers me. All the way from 7 to 10 (did 6 have something for aggro? I don't remember) it's been a completely random shit-show. And I don't like that, it diincentivizes building specialized at all because either everyone has around the same armor values or you're rolling the dice.

Action RPGs have come a long way since the 90’s. Now we can have gameplay like Dragon’s Dogma, on the other hand, turn-based combat is almost the same since the 90’s, albeit just flashier animations.

mandatory minigames

Attached: 1579379437471.jpg (456x386, 81.36K)

I'd argue you are wrong on both accounts. There were good action RPGs in the 90's, like YS, and saying turn based combat hasn't changed in 30 years is just ridiculous. I think Underrail is a good recent example, it's a more refined version of Fallout 2 and it also uses something akin to time units from XCOM, among other refinements.

No that's pretty far from true. While I agree that Dragon's Dogma has good combat, saying that it's groundbreaking is just downright wrong. You can climb around on large enemies, sure, but that's a mechanic only melee really need, meaning half the game's archetypes will never touch an enemy. Again, not saying DD is bad, just saying that it's not exactly an action-revolution.

On the other hand good turn-based RPGs are more focused on movement now, and less on the traditional 3-in-a-row (sure those happen too but they're far from the entire spectrum, insert autism joke here). Where you are, where your enemy is, what direction he is facing, what you do, how that will influence your next turn, how that will influence the enemies turn, status effects, cooldown timers, resource management, combined abilities, item usage, buffing/debuffing, double-edged swords, risk management and all this usually across multiple 3-6+ characters. These are all aspects that can, and are, handled better in turn-based games simply because you are expected to take it all into consideration.

A lot of action games have elements of this too, but rarely with the depth of turn-based games I find. Again, DD is not bad, I like DD, I can appreciate DD's gameplay, but saying that it's vastly more involved then GOOD modern turn-based games is subjectively wrong.

Again, DD is not bad, but saying that turn-based games have

*have not made progress since the 90s is because you haven't been exposed to the right games or you're lying.

>item durability
>inventory limits
Miss me with that shit.

>tailing missions

Attached: Wigger Death Metal Drummer with Grill.jpg (1280x720, 47.26K)

>NPC moves slow as shit so you can't follow them without taking breaks as to not get too close
The ultimate faggotry.

Don’t get me wrong, my favorite games growing were turn based like BoF, Suikoden. Turn based haven’t progressed that much to menus and watching animations compared to how action rpgs have changed throughout the years.

>roguelike/lite
>procedurally generated
>2D
>pixelart
If indie games disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow then gaming as a whole would improve

fuck banjo tooie

>limited inventory space
>on top of weight system

How underage are you?

If you oversimplify it, isn't that what action games do to? The only difference is that you have less menus, one that reads "X to slash with sword" and you hit that menu over and over again.

Although I do get your point, but that's more a problem of interaction design. Interesting turn-based games will try to mix it up by having timing-based mechanics. One that comes to mind if Fairy Fencer F (total weebshit, but bear with me) which allows you to smack an enemy up in the air and if you pick your next command quickly enough you can follow them up and hit them while afloat for some extra damage. Little things like that make even turn-based games a little more action'y while still being thoroughly turn-based.

A lot of companies (like Atlus) seem to think that the best way forward is to make the menus better looking and more intuitive, while others believe that you can have a turn-based game where each turn allows for some action-like combat. No matter the approach though there are things turn-based games can that action games just can't do.

>now we have a single example of something done right

parries that parry literally everything and make every fight play out the same
>melee attacks? just parry them
>projectile attacks you would normally have to dodge? just parry them
>shockwave attacks that would normally make you jump? just parry them
>the entire arena getting covered in lava which would normally make you find a safe spot? just parry the lava
>boss throws a fuckhuge tornado at you? just keep parrying it while you're stuck in the eye of the storm
>boss that spams bullet hell patterns? just parry it

>Ys
>Tales
>Star Ocean
>FFXV
>Type 0
Happy?

>you're completely isolated except for someone who chimes in on everything via radio, telepathy, etc

Attached: 1503170059053.png (622x621, 497.91K)

All of those are generic garbage action games.

game(s) that do(es) this?

Most if not all Might & Magic games make knights and paladins into tanks while giving you no way to protect your casters (M&MX had some sort of taunt though iirc).

I tried to like Fairy Fencer, but it got tedious and boring after a while. Sure, I’ve finished every SMT and Persona games, but mid point I was already bored of the combat. If it weren’t for the story I wouldn’t have pushed through.

this, it's annoying and just adds chores
>m-muh realism

Name some of your favorite games, so I could shit on them.

FF7/8/9 have cover, 10 has guard and sentinel.

Ehr, it's not for everyone. But it's an interesting dynamic when you roll into a fight with 6 party members and finding out where to stand, which enemies you can have your back to, and how to actually reach them with heals. It's got some good systems, but it's not for everyone.