The general video game logic thread

PageEmp

Sea what I did there?
  • 13,028
    Posts
    9
    Years
    So feel free to use this thread to discuss any kinds of weird ass video game logic that bothers you.

    I was really, really tempted to focus this thread on only super smash brothers, and the fact that in the games, you can sometimes practically pit children or minors against adults. Yeah, super smash brothers child abuse. Also you can have humans beat up animals and Pokemon. So any thoughts on this?
     
    I don't like every NPC speaking English if it's not the native language.

    Hitman is horrible about this. If the game involves a contract in Paris or Chongqing, there's no way everyone should be speaking English.

    The older games did use different languages with subtitles to represent different areas. This problem only began with the new trilogy.
     
    Fire Emblem Awakening and Fates: Changed from a berserker to an archer. Completely forgets how to use an axe until switching back. Pick it up and swing it.

    Pokemon: Ignores the usual "saving the world from crime lords" and "commanding giant monsters" as a twelve-year-old part. What about the food bill? How expensive is it to keep a Wailord? How many Wailords have suffocated during dry land battles? Why is a Wailord's Body Slam less damaging than a Wigglytuff's? Weighs 33 times more than that balloon.
     
    Not being able to climb over/jump over small indentations. The whole concept of invisible walls just really drives me nuts. In general, all these inconveniences built (especially into 3D games) just to balance the gameplay at the detriment of making the world feel less lived in and more game-y.

    This goes along with NPCs feeling like they only exist to serve the player instead of being treated as characters who actually live in the world that game takes place in.
    Pokemon is especially bad at this with its "Oh no, we're doomed. We need a ten year old to save us!". Like, give the regular people in the world a little bit more relevance. The player can still play a major role in the game without being the one true savior.
     
    Depends on the game I'm playing. Sometimes I'm playing just to be entertained and sometimes I'm there to be immersed. The former requires no logic to hold up outside of its internal consistency. I seriously could not care less that I'm eating trees to recover health in Dota 2 or that I can bring people back to life as many times as I want in Battlefield by simply pressing some paddles to their chest. These games are internally consistent. They tell me that an action has a certain result which is relevant for me because it helps me achieve my objectives. As long as it keeps working from now until some patch I'm happy.

    The latter however, makes me demand more. Especially with singleplayer games because when immersion comes into play I need things to make sense. And not just in the "the game universe says so" sense but in a sense of "at first glance and inspection this appears to hold up".

    When a game posits to me that it takes place in a "modified earth" scenario I expect the same rules to apply with some slack. Things like gravity and the like should remain the same and there should be some semblance of reality. Propose to me a completely different universe and I may be a little more receptive to things being different, but again, it should be internally consistent.

    Not sure why, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
     
    Armor stats in (some) RPG's are madness. Ah yes, this glorified swimsuit has 100 armor, while this full chainmail chestpiece only has 80... To the beach it is!
     
    There's a meme in the Yakuza community where they bring up the fact that the main character, Kiryu Kazuma, has a "no-kill policy" in the games, while showing footage from said games that depicts him performing some of the most comically brutal and fatal attacks on random people who decided to pick a fight with him.
     
    Back
    Top