Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
video about do gamers know what they dislike
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit
rambling but it did make a point for me that whereas I can easily name
several mechanics that I dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I
like and the reasons are less concrete.

So anyway I'll give it a go in no particular order.

- Switching up the gameplay. This is something I feel that HL:1/2 did
really well in that each level felt in keeping with the game yet was
also different. So often in games I just feel that I'm doing the same
thing that I was five hours ago but I've now got better stats/equipment.

- The game is tightly focused on meaningful content over meaningless
content to extend the length of the game.

- Options to play the character you want to and not feeling forced to
have a certain type of character. A lot of games I think get this right
in being able to have different types of builds but I still find it a
problem with CRPG's in general that you ending up doing side quests for
the reward instead of because that's what my character would do. The
glaring one I find is almost the assumption that you're the good guy.
Disco Elysium is a game that mostly avoided that as failure was an
option (failing forward) and so was playing a fascist, a centrist or a
communist among others all of which are viable options.

- Keep the game with one core focus and not multiple. Total War is one
of the worse offenders here. Am I playing a 4x strategy game or a large
scale tactical game. Just do one or the other. An honourable mention for
XCOM with its base management. I'm here for the tactical combat thank
you very much.

- Dialogue trees that are adapted to your character and not fixed. This
again comes from Disco Elysium where what you can say is affected by
your character and you even have your inner monologue telling you what
you should do.

- UI's that try to minimise breaking of immersion. Firewatch gets a
mention here with its 'physical' map and compass for navigating and also
Kingdom Come Deliverance with its in game art style based quest markers.
Another one I like is Pip boy of Fallout fame.

I was going to mention an engaging storyline but then thought I can't
explain what that really means to me!

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:21 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
>video about do gamers know what they dislike
>(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit
>rambling but it did make a point for me that whereas I can easily name
>several mechanics that I dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I
>like and the reasons are less concrete.

It really is difficult. It is easier for me to mention ones I don't
like. But I gave it some thought and.....

I think the only thing I can come up with for mechanics I do like are
games with a lot of interconnected systems.

I am thinking of something like those old city builder games I used
to play like Settlers 2 where if you wanted this, you have to build
that. But if you wanted that, you needed something else as well.
Creating efficiency with all of these systems appeals to me.

Why it appeals to me, I can not tell you.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:21 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
>video about do gamers know what they dislike
>(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit
>rambling but it did make a point for me that whereas I can easily name
>several mechanics that I dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I
>like and the reasons are less concrete.
>
I like when gun go boom and head a'splode!

Honestly, I'd wager _any_ mechanic can be enjoyable, if not overused
or done poorly. Quick-time events can be fun. Escort quests can be
fun. Games consisting of little more than just walking around can be
fun. It all has to do with the context of the game and how well they
integrate into the setting and pacing.

I have to say, I generally prefer a purity of genres. I'm not a big
fan of games that try to appeal to every sort of gamer. Games with 4x
strategy and real-time combat, both top-down and first-person, with
RPG mechanics with rogue-like elements and mini-games where you can
play some sci-fi version of football, plus crafting and survival
and... and... and...

Keep things simpler. Know what you're going for. Don't kitchen-sink
the experience. I'm not totally against mixing genres, but too many
games try to be everything at once. It's messy and unfocused.

So when it comes to what I like, I'm very catholic. I've played
"Doom". I've played "Harvest Moon". I've played "Falcon 4.0" I've
played "Civilization". I've played "Titan Quest". I've played
"Everybody's Gone to the Rapture". I've played "Bejeweled". I've
played "Super Meat Boy". I've played "MLB 06: The Show". I've found
value in all of them. Heck, I've even played that free "Korea Cats"
hidden-object game that was offered a few weeks ago. It's rarely the
core mechanics themselves that I have issue with. It's the specific
implementations that I dislike.

So what mechanics don't I like? I'm not really sure I could point to
any. Or even mechanics I like more than others. Give me a good game,
and I'll love it despite its mechanics, not because of them.

But I do admit, I do have something of a soft spot (in the head?) for
gory games. Remember "Soldier of Fortune"? "Dead Space"? I giggle like
little kid playing "Brutal Doom" and watching the gibs drip from the
ceiling. I'm not saying I want every game to be like that. But
cartoonishly excessive gore makes me smile.

On 1/13/2025 4:33 AM, JAB wrote:
> Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
> video about do gamers know what they dislike (https://www.youtube.com/
> watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit rambling but it did make a
> point for me that whereas I can easily name several mechanics that I
> dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I like and the reasons are
> less concrete.
>
> So anyway I'll give it a go in no particular order.
>
> - Switching up the gameplay. This is something I feel that HL:1/2 did
> really well in that each level felt in keeping with the game yet was
> also different. So often in games I just feel that I'm doing the same
> thing that I was five hours ago but I've now got better stats/equipment.
>
> - The game is tightly focused on meaningful content over meaningless
> content to extend the length of the game.
>
> - Options to play the character you want to and not feeling forced to
> have a certain type of character. A lot of games I think get this right
> in being able to have different types of builds but I still find it a
> problem with CRPG's in general that you ending up doing side quests for
> the reward instead of because that's what my character would do. The
> glaring one I find is almost the assumption that you're the good guy.
> Disco Elysium is a game that mostly avoided that as failure was an
> option (failing forward) and so was playing a fascist, a centrist or a
> communist among others all of which are viable options.
>
> - Keep the game with one core focus and not multiple. Total War is one
> of the worse offenders here. Am I playing a 4x strategy game or a large
> scale tactical game. Just do one or the other. An honourable mention for
> XCOM with its base management. I'm here for the tactical combat thank
> you very much.
>
> - Dialogue trees that are adapted to your character and not fixed. This
> again comes from Disco Elysium where what you can say is affected by
> your character and you even have your inner monologue telling you what
> you should do.
>
> - UI's that try to minimise breaking of immersion. Firewatch gets a
> mention here with its 'physical' map and compass for navigating and also
> Kingdom Come Deliverance with its in game art style based quest markers.
> Another one I like is Pip boy of Fallout fame.
>
> I was going to mention an engaging storyline but then thought I can't
> explain what that really means to me!

A well made and fun game *shrug* Mechanically I can't really define that.

Oddly the fun is much more important than well made, as some of the
games I love the most are are were almost unplayable bugfests. Bethesda
games, Master of Magic come to mind.

I seem to like 3rd person action or rpgs most these days. I enjoy
trying lots of weapons, strategies and or 'builds' and combat is pretty
much a must.

I prefer darker settings, but I've been surprised by a few lighter ones.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 1/13/2025 11:16 AM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:21 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
>> video about do gamers know what they dislike
>> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit
>> rambling but it did make a point for me that whereas I can easily name
>> several mechanics that I dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I
>> like and the reasons are less concrete.
>
> It really is difficult. It is easier for me to mention ones I don't
> like. But I gave it some thought and.....
>
> I think the only thing I can come up with for mechanics I do like are
> games with a lot of interconnected systems.
>
> I am thinking of something like those old city builder games I used
> to play like Settlers 2 where if you wanted this, you have to build
> that. But if you wanted that, you needed something else as well.
> Creating efficiency with all of these systems appeals to me.
>
> Why it appeals to me, I can not tell you.

I like those kinds of games too but there is a narrow band where they
work and a lot of them don't get the balance right. And too often all
the focus on getting it right is in the early game. So when you hit
mid- to late-game things kind of fall apart with either way too much or
way too little material.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 14/01/2025 15:39, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>   I am thinking of something like those old city builder games I used
>> to play like Settlers 2 where if you wanted this, you have to build
>> that. But if you wanted that, you needed something else as well.
>> Creating efficiency with all of these systems appeals to me.
>>
>> Why it appeals to me, I can not tell you.
>
> I like those kinds of games too but there is a narrow band where they
> work and a lot of them don't get the balance right.  And too often all
> the focus on getting it right is in the early game.  So when you hit
> mid- to late-game things kind of fall apart with either way too much or
> way too little material.

I rather liked playing Caesar and Pharaoh but both of them suffered from
a similar problem in that later in the game there's just so much to
juggle it starts becoming a chore. One of the things I do like about Civ
is that it give you a range of options as to how hands on you want to
be. The simple adding of being able to automate workers is such a good
feature to have.

It falls inline with I like my wargames but I only play those have a
limited number of units at any one time so say up to around twenty or
so. That keeps it so you have enough flexibility to employ tactics but I
still keep focused on what I'm doing. I look at something like Gary
Grigsby's War in the East and dread to think how long it takes to
complete a single turn let alone a campaign.

On 13/01/2025 21:14, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So when it comes to what I like, I'm very catholic. I've played
> "Doom". I've played "Harvest Moon". I've played "Falcon 4.0" I've
> played "Civilization". I've played "Titan Quest". I've played
> "Everybody's Gone to the Rapture". I've played "Bejeweled". I've
> played "Super Meat Boy". I've played "MLB 06: The Show". I've found
> value in all of them. Heck, I've even played that free "Korea Cats"
> hidden-object game that was offered a few weeks ago. It's rarely the
> core mechanics themselves that I have issue with. It's the specific
> implementations that I dislike.

I certainly have the genres that I gravitate to but there are also games
I like but I'm just not sure why. Titan Quest and Subnautica fit into
that category as they are from genres that I normally steer clear of
completely.

Then there's the likes of Talos Principle II which was a must buy for me
considering TP:1 I loved and have replayed multiple times. I kinda liked
it but it never really grabbed me in the way the first one did even
taking into the account the novelty value was no longer there.

On 14/01/2025 15:22, Justisaur wrote:
> A well made and fun game *shrug* Mechanically I can't really define that.
>
> Oddly the fun is much more important than well made, as some of the
> games I love the most are are were almost unplayable bugfests.  Bethesda
> games, Master of Magic come to mind.
>
I tend to agree, a game doesn't haven't to be polished just polished
enough (also my view on graphics) and you can overlook flaws if the main
gameplay is good. A game where I think the lack of polish did become a
problem was Partisans 1941 a tactical stealth game. The controls were so
janky that I kept finding myself doing something that I just didn't want
to and dying. I might take another look at it to see if it's got any better.

> I seem to like 3rd person action or rpgs most these days.  I enjoy
> trying lots of weapons, strategies and or 'builds' and combat is pretty
> much a must.
>
I still like my RPG's but since I've started playing tabletop RPG's a
few years ago the big limitation of CRPG's has just magnified to me -
the lack of player agency. Possibly being a GM makes it even worse as
you get to see just how much of a session is made up and in our game
probably about a third fits into that category.

It's an unfair comparison really as you can't expect a PC game to just
come up with ideas on the fly, either the dev's put it in the game or
you don't get it.

> I prefer darker settings, but I've been surprised by a few lighter ones.
I can't say I have a preference for that either way. I enjoyed playing
Sunless Sea, although that is a different type of dark from the normal
horror fest, and I also enjoyed Shadow Gambit:The Cursed Crew with its
over the top supernatural pirates.

If you want dark then play This War of Mine a game I like but I'm not
sure if I would describe it as a fun experience.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 12:33:21 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>Well I though about from a thread of which ones we dislike and also a
>video about do gamers know what they dislike
>(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCjHipuMir8). The video is a bit
>rambling but it did make a point for me that whereas I can easily name
>several mechanics that I dislike, I find it that much harder for ones I
>like and the reasons are less concrete.
>
>So anyway I'll give it a go in no particular order.
[snip]

>I was going to mention an engaging storyline but then thought I can't
>explain what that really means to me!
>
No one can. Literally no one. Tbh, I'm not even sure that's even a
"mechanic."

My list, in no particular order:

- Save anywhere, ability to savescum if the task is too difficult
- POV/spat-viz puzzles
- How do I get *there*?! puzzles (in both 2d or 3d)
- Secret levels/hidden secrets/easter eggs (I love doing stupid
sparkshine tricks in Metroid, for instance)
- Timed tasks, such as "collect all the stars in 15 seconds"
- Sequencing and timing puzzles, as long as it isn't to the milisecond
- Pixel perfect jumping
- Dash moves, combos
- Scavenger hunts
- Dialogue trees, especially deep ones that have imaginative options
- Resource management
- Multiple solutions to an objective (such as in Deus Ex)
- Boss battles where the boss has a weakness that you can intelligently
discover and exploit (not random crap like in Nintendo games)

As a bonus, another one I hate that I forgot:

- Weapon or armor degradation/maintenance of *any* kind. Busy work.

This all was almost as easy as figuring out what I don't like for me,
unlike others have reported.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:14:39 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Escort quests can be fun.

No. NO! Bad Spalls, BAD! (*reaches for rolled up newspaper*)

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 21:07:32 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>Then there's the likes of Talos Principle II which was a must buy for me
>considering TP:1 I loved and have replayed multiple times. I kinda liked
>it but it never really grabbed me in the way the first one did even
>taking into the account the novelty value was no longer there.

....aaaaand another beam puzzle. I feel you.

--
Zag

This is csipg.rpg - reality is off topic. ...G. Quinn ('08)

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:54:30 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:14:39 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>Escort quests can be fun.
>
>No. NO! Bad Spalls, BAD! (*reaches for rolled up newspaper*)

I know, I know. We've all had bad experiences. But that's just because
those escort quests are badly done.

But if they're done well, they're fun!

I mean, "The Last of Us" and "Enslaved: Odyssey to the West" are
basically both extended escort quests. The 2008 "Prince of Persia"
(which is a lot better than most people remember) is another.

The key is to not make the escortee so fucking useless and vulnerable
as to squeeze all the fun out of the experience. If they are
vulnerable, don't have them rush into combat. Give them good
pathfinding so you aren't backtracking to get them unstuck. Make it so
the player, not the escortee, is determining the pace and direction of
the adventure. Give the escortee something to do other than simply
whine at the player.

All this takes effort and creativity. But if done well, it works
great. The NPC feels like a real companion, and not just a load that
must be moved from point A to point B.