Soldiers wearing steel plates getting cut into shreds like a hot knife through butter by emo kids with tiny swords.
What do you have against Star Wars?
I played through a rom hack of its sequel, Seiken Densetsu 3, with a couple friends. Tons of Fun, they’ve never really recaptured that kinda feel since then
QFT
Sadly, Secret of Evermore, which is pretty great and unique imo, sold poorly. Critics even said they wished for a more “Japanese”-style because of lot of the aesthetics was from western Sci-Fi and it was basically SquareSoft’s North American studio’s only game. Years after I first played it, I can say it’s a pretty unique game to this day. Interestingly enough, this is where Jeremy Soule first got his start straight out of high school (Skyrim, Guild Wars series, etc soundtracks).
Hell no that’s disgusting.
Many genres use “do whatever you want” as a selling point. It’s mostly a gimmicky time-waster for people who want to sit around and kill people in Skyrim or GTA IV. This has become a cliche.
Again, it’s not a cliche as much as it is a preference of gameplay.
That’s like saying all fighting games are cliche in the way that they all involve people fighting.
No… Just… No. The studios that developed those two games are pioneers in their respective genres. It took them multiple titles to perfect styles of gameplay that were yet unseen. I was mindblown when I played Daggerfall, and my jaw was on the floor when Morrowind released. Same for GTA3.
I don’t know your background in gaming or where you were when these titles came out, but they could be called anything but gimmicky.
Not even close. If you want to start this discussion, we can do it over PM. My main point: games where you aren’t required to accomplish something are pointless. Especially most RPGs (except dark/demons souls); if you can pick up the controller and spend time on it, you are also able to finish the game. It’s become an annoying selling point.
Yes, sandbox environments are gimmicky. That is my claim, and I stand by it. It’s the same with (most) RPGs: most of the sandbox stuff you can do is pretty pointless. Do you get a score, a grade, or some reference of accomplishment for dicking around in these games? No. And before you make the assertion that I haven’t experienced the games in their entirety, I currently own Morrowind and Oblivion (and did almost everything in both), and I formerly owned/played many other sandbox style games like GTA 3. Sure, they innovated, and yes they were fun to play, but their “innovation” is not great game design. Fuck even angry birds has better design than WoW and shit.
I could extend this by explaining to you how Godhand, DMC, Battle Garegga etc. are better games than mass effect etc. If you care to hear my explanation further elaborated, I am more than willing. If you want to read further opinions similar to mine, read David Sirlin’s opinion on MMOs, RPGs, FPSs etc. Alternatively, you can readthis thread from a community of shmup players (1CC means one credit complete).
You seem to have this self-inflated sense of validation that you somehow think carries over to everyone else. What’s pointless to you might be the most interesting thing to someone else, and it doesn’t really make one or the other more right or wrong.
Sandbox games are fun (to a lot of people) because they offer a free-roaming environment (usually a large one) and give the the option to either do what you feel like doing or progress through the game’s objective. Your point is invalid on several levels because they deliver a sense of freedom AS WELL as the option to go and accomplish things within the game. The only game I can think of that comes close to your description of “all sandbox games” is Minecraft, and that game isn’t so much a sandbox game as much as it is a time killer.
Like, I really can’t believe that you’re trying to complain about the fact that some games just aren’t linear, nor are they all built for YOUR specific form of entertainment.
Want someone to hold your hand all the way through?
Wanna walk in a straight line the whole game and only focus on one objective?
Wanna have little next to NO freedom in terms of gameplay whatsoever?
Final Fantasy XIII is waiting for you in the bargain bin at Game Stop. 
My guess is that you did not read the shmups forum link at all. You know, I agree with those people, just as David Sirlin does too. You seem to not understand that these games do not require any skill, which is what VS is probably addressing. Have you ever heard someone say, “I am good at Dragon Quest” or," I am at top player at Skyrim and GTA?" No, and especially with the sandbox games, because they effectively do not require you to accomplish do anything. (taken straight from VS’s post).
As for RPGs. Why waste time watching some other characters in a video game acquire skills when I can play a game that improves MY skills?
Haha nice. You can’t address my point so you resort to a weak attempt at prescribing some sort of thought pattern to me. Nice.
Yeah! Sandbox games are fun, but they still are bad video game design. You still don’t understand my point, and I doubt it’s worth responding to the drivel you posted in response to my informative assertions, but I’ll still try to help you out: in MGS2, you are rewarded for excellent play with a “Big Boss” ranking at the completion of the game. In DMC3, you get a SS for near-perfect play. If you SS all missions you get a reward. In Dodonpachi, you get to play against the true last boss if you complete the game with 1 credit and less than 3 bombs used.
Do you understand? These games are challenges. Your attempt to be witty is an appeal to casual gamers and nothing else.
Annnnd finally we see the arguments dwindle into the dark abyss of pointless ramble and thought.
So in essence, you’re basically saying a game can’t be good unless it has a linear form of gameplay involving levels and a performance grade at the end. Or unless it takes “skill” to play them.
Wow. Just wow. 
Your reading comprehension…
I would use this post to clear it up, but VS said almost what I wanted to say. Also lol at you putting skill in quotation marks. Are you sure that you registered for the correct forum for your tastes? Fighting games require skill, don’t they?
As for my opinion, I do find these types of games as a waste of time. Sure, other people may find them fun, but they are as the thread title suggests: bad video game design cliches.
Ok this is the last time I’m responding because now you’re just being stupid.
Since my “comprehension” is just so atrocious, let’s take a look at what your saying here and break it down for you since you seem to be on this broken record trip right now. This is directed at both of you, and I will address each of your quotes individually so that you two don’t get lost mm’kay?
-Beat-:
-"but they are as the thread title suggests: bad video game design cliches."
So, this was the opinion portion I was going on about. You know, how your opinion doesn’t necessarily make something so nor does it reflect the opinions of many others. Something is not bad in design just because you think it is, and you still fail to explain why exactly these choices are bad and you actually just convoluted your argument further by explaining what IS good game design. And apparently good game design is only when the game is challenging you or when it requires a strenuous amount of skill to play it. And that’s not my “reading comprehension” gone awry right there, that’s straight from your fucking mouth.
Vampire_Saviour
-"Yeah! Sandbox games are fun, but they still are bad video game design. You still don’t understand my point, and I doubt it’s worth responding to the drivel you posted in response to my informative assertions, but I’ll still try to help you out: in MGS2, you are rewarded for excellent play with a “Big Boss” ranking at the completion of the game. In DMC3, you get a SS for near-perfect play. If you SS all missions you get a reward. In Dodonpachi, you get to play against the true last boss if you complete the game with 1 credit and less than 3 bombs used.
Do you understand? These games are challenges.
Again we drag ourselves back to this bullshit argument. That games can only be good in design if they provide “challenge” or “require skill”. Like seriously, that is the stupidest shit I have ever heard. You don’t need the game to pat you on the head, stick a pacifier in your mouth and tell you that you did a good job for it to be classified as having good video game design. In fact that’s what’s wrong with a lot of the modern games that are being released nowadays, in my opinion.
Games like Mario Kart, Minecraft, GTA, Dead Rising, ect. are all poorly designed just because they’re free-roam or they don’t give you a grade at the end of a level? You are discrediting hundreds upon hundreds of incredible games with that statement simply for the reason that they are free roam or not level based. Like, I can’t believe I’m even having this argument with what I assume is to be a grown-ass man.
Isn’t the initial inclination to play video games in the first place…to have fun? Since when does it have to be all about “skill” and “challenge” for it to be enjoyable? Or to be considered decent in design? I understand if those are the only types of games YOU find worthwhile, but to go as far to say that they are “poorly designed” just comes off as ignorant to me. You’re arguing as if you have your hands over your ears, eyes closed and screaming “lalalalalalala” to yourself.
This is the point I addressed initially and it is the point I have been arguing this whole time. You’re trying to act as if I’m some idiot who isn’t paying attention to what you’re saying in an attempt to shroud the stupidity within your comments. Like this one:
“Yes, sandbox environments are gimmicky. That is my claim, and I stand by it. It’s the same with (most) RPGs: most of the sandbox stuff you can do is pretty pointless. Do you get a score, a grade, or some reference of accomplishment for dicking around in these games? No.”
You see kids, it’s allllllll really just objective. Which is pretty much what I’m trying to get through your fucking head. You are not making an argument. You are throwing a tantrum devoid of logic in which you poorly attempt to dismantle the legitimacy of sandbox games by un-validating their main points basically by saying that “they’re just bad” and failing to truly make your point, while at the same time trying to discredit other people’s opinion of the genre.
Your words are just a pointless waste of bandwith. Please stop posting, good sir.
So was your point “Game with score is better than game with no score.”, or “Look this guy that I idolize said it too, so I must be right”?
I searched gimmick though and the definition is “An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project”. Upon reading that I realized that damn near anything qualifies as a gimmick. I wonder if man thought underwear were a gimmick eons ago when the idea of testicular support was innovative?
So yeah at this point we are really just arguing over genre superiority, which is retarded. Out.
Testicular support is a gimmick. Your testicles are already supported by your scrotum.
Underwear is like cheap wii peripherals.
That’s like saying women don’t need bras. Sure maybe they don’t, but if they choose not to wear em they risk being saggy.
I guess men don’t have that issue with testicles, or just don’t care.
What were we talking about again?
Maybe you did sign up for the wrong forum. Here, we (mostly) care about results in video games. Skill isn’t some extraneous factor to fun. I will draw another parallel for you.
In Megaman Zero 2 or 3 (or 4) if you play well, you gain the abilities of the bosses you defeat. What constitutes a good score in this game is the most pivotal aspect of it’s design, and it’s a good game. This is good game design. (I can inform you of these if you haven’t played the game before).
Here is the analogue:
In Street Fighter III 3rd Strike, if you play well, you defeat your opponent. What constitutes a good score/result in this game is also the most important characteristic when determining good game design. Some people dislike some of the aspects, while others enjoy them more. Overall, it’s pretty much a great example of good game design (come at me 3s haters).
The components of “good” play vary for these two games as they are in different genres, but the fundamentals of good game design persist. Do you get it now?
As you can see, this isn’t a preference of genre; other sandbox-like games have implemented these same aspects of good game design as well. The overwhelming majority of the time, sandbox features are implemented as a “selling point,” when can be more univocally stated as a “time-waster.” You don’t need to get so butthurt over it dude.
And yes, the gimmick is for sales, not game design.
I also get the hint from you that you never really experienced arcade games (or even competitive fighting games) in their entirety.
if you played good enough at an arcade, u got a knife pulled on you. Ahhh, I miss those days. Fuck you, I’mma zone you with Blackheart all day.