Double Jumping and other things in games make no sense

[TY]

Not breaking your legs when you fall from a high place (looking at almost every single game there is >_>)

 

[Lusus]

Pretty much every "stealth" mission in any game. You hide in a barrel or another object and move around in it, but the guards don't notice that the barrel has moved at all. They would at least hear a noise of you moving around.

Also drowning in water like mentioned above, it's even worse if you weren't completely submerged in water.

 

[Alex]

A lot of things in video games don't make sense. Like Discord said, anything stealth related is usually total BS. But I loved Dishonoured, the AC series despite stealth and combat-against-your-odds being a huge part.

Can't complain though. Video games aren't real-life simulator. The first thing (I think) that should be going on in a game dev's head is "Is this fun?" and usually stealth games are big fat yes. Same with double jumping, it's unrealistically fun because it adds a sense of uncertainty when jumping in the air. Are you gonna make it to that next platform? Or the Scout in TF2, double jumping is a huge asset when fighting other classes.

 

[Klippy]

I'm surprised people haven't said drowning in water because the main character can't swim. I'm looking at you, early Assassin Creed games...

I actually find that logical. I don't know anything historically about swimming, but I would believe that people in the past didn't know how to swim if they weren't always living by the water or weren't allowed time to be a kid. The one that doesn't get an excuse is the earlier Grand Theft Autos.

I always hate, in games and cinema/television, that the ONE main guy happens to live through all the catastrophe. How is it that this seemingly normal person escapes every disaster while everyone else, even trained soldiers and police, seem to die? Makes no sense thematically and usually takes me out of the experience (especially in movies).

 

[Nah]

I always hate, in games and cinema/television, that the ONE main guy happens to live through all the catastrophe. How is it that this seemingly normal person escapes every disaster while everyone else, even trained soldiers and police, seem to die? Makes no sense thematically and usually takes me out of the experience (especially in movies).

This. Even if it's a fictional world, it's still terribly unbelievable that some average Joe can do far better than anyone else simply because they're the main character.

And basically most shonen anime/manga tropes.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

I actually find that logical. I don't know anything historically about swimming, but I would believe that people in the past didn't know how to swim if they weren't always living by the water or weren't allowed time to be a kid. The one that doesn't get an excuse is the earlier Grand Theft Autos.

Yeah, but if you're some extreme athlete like Altair where you're the master of the art of swordsmanship, can scale huge buildings, and even assassinate targets from stories high with precise precision, then you're telling me that you can't swim? That's pretty damn anticlimatic if you ask me.

 

[Ice1]

This. Even if it's a fictional world, it's still terribly unbelievable that some average Joe can do far better than anyone else simply because they're the main character.

And basically most shonen anime/manga tropes.

I try to see it like this: He doesn't live through everything because he's the main character, he's the main character because he lives through everything. Although this doesn't make much sense with characters that have ongoing story's or participate in multiple storylines, like Batman and the doctor.

 

[Dreg]

things like Call of Duty when you have taken massive damage, but then after 5 or so seconds, gone back up to 100%. )(Yeah, that's like real enough.)( "He's missing a leg! take cover! (leg reappears with health)"

 

[pkmin3033]

How about armour/clothing physics? There are a few games that get this right, but for the most part games completely ignore the hit your movement speed would take if you equipped heavy armour, as well as the effect it would have on damage...if I was wearing a suit of plate mail, I wouldn't expect to take any damage at all if someone tried to stab me head-on with a dagger, for example. I'd expect there to be repurcussions if I went out into the middle of a desert or a blizzard dressed like that, too. In most cases, clothing is just decoration.

Then, of course, there is the classic JRPG trope of less clothes = more power. They carried that to ridiculous lengths in Ar Tonelico Qoga, where it was required that you "purge" your characters of their clothing to be able to do any kind of damage at all.

A lot of status effect protection items don't make sense, either...a ring that prevents blindness? A cape that somehow makes you resistant to earth-based damage? Fire and water I can understand somewhat, because I guess it's feasible if its made of certain types of material, but I'd want a little more than a cape to protect me if someone was throwing rocks at me...

 

[Sydian]

FLUDD's hover nozzle keeping Mario afloat in general. You can do this on red coin mission in the secret levels (where you previously had FLUDD taken) which...are in space. What's the water hitting to keep Mario up? And even on land, how does the water hit the ground so fast for Mario to not lose at least some height? And backwards jumps. Yeah. Those.

 

[Juno]

Everything blows up except for the thing that's a fixed part of the background/scenery.

Spoiler:

I'm shooting this car with missiles from a military-grade jet that usually turns cars into fiery rubble, but this indestructible billboard is in the way.

 

[griever7x]

Well I immediately thought of something Bethesda RPGs do: sneak attack criticals. I don't very well understand how attacking an enemy that hasn't detected me results in a critical hit solely from the detection factor. Like if I'm going to put an arrow in someone's neck I'm going to do it anyway; it's not like they can realistically react to the thing.

I can appreciate the justification that an unalert enemy is going to be easier to land a well-aimed shot upon, and that an undetected marksman has the time to adopt a good shooting position and aim carefully. Still, it would be nice for locational damage to be a thing instead, like if my shot lands in an unarmoured part of their body, they're injured, and if it hits their armour, probably not a lot happens.

Instead, the matter is decided by some numbers, which one can't necessarily fault an RPG for, but with the combat system's move over the course of the Elder Scrolls series to a more active and skill-based style (compare melee in Skyrim to Morrowind), where and how the player lands blows seems to me like it should be more important than whether their sword is +1 or +5. It's like we're in an uncanny valley of gameplay mechanics being number-based but requiring a degree of active input none the less. Maybe that's a happy balance for many players, but I find it quite odd given thought.

I always felt like this about recent TES games as well.
Fortunately, the modding community is really huge and there are several solutions to this issue.
In this case, I think you should try Duke Patrick's Archery and Heavy Weapons Combat. It doesn't simply add locational damage, it overhauls the game's combat completely to make it as close to reality as possible.
Be careful, though: you need to read the instructions to install it properly, but I guarantee you it's well worth it!