Stupid Video Game Cliches.

Avatar image for delta_ass
delta_ass

3776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 7

Edited By delta_ass

Oh man, where to start...

Well first off, I just love those games where you can put away your gun, switch to a knife, and somehow... this allows you to run faster. Like, WTF? The gun didn't disappear, you're still carrying it somewhere on your body... why would holding a knife instead reduce your overall weight and allow you to move quicker? It makes absolutely no sense. Wasn't it the case in Counter-Strike? It's been a while, but I think it was. People on your team would immediately pull out their knives at the start of every match so they could leg it a bit quicker to the chokepoints. Absolutely retarded game mechanic. I think I saw the same thing happen in a Quick Look of Fallout 3 DLC. Hey, let's run faster because we put the gun back into our backpack and pulled out our knife. Yea, way to go... that makes a lot of fucking sense.

And what about the super weak flashlights we always get to use in games? Like, the ones that only work for 30 seconds before you have to turn em off to recharge? Let's see, what games have these weakass flashlights... I think Half-Life, FEAR, and AvP 2 just to name a few. Cmon, where do they buy these piece of shit flashlights? Are the batteries really that weak? They seem to work forever, but you just need to let them recharge every 30 seconds? What are you recharging them with? Is there some perpetual motion device you use to crank em up? Is that how those work? Cause I know regular flashlights can work for hours without needing their batteries replaced. How they didn't decide to buy those regular good ones for use in Black Mesa, whereever-the-hell-FEAR-is, and the Colonial Marine Corps, I just don't know. It's mind boggling.

Weapon balance in games is just silly sometimes. In almost every action game, you've got the pistol, then the rifle. Sometimes it's called an SMG. Now, the funny thing is... the pistol's bullet somehow seems a lot stronger then the rifle's. You'll pull out this pistol and it delivers a mighty semi automatic bang. Yet when you switch to this faster rifle or SMG, their bullets seem mighty underpowered. Like, the bullets are individually much weaker then the bullets in the humble pistol. When in reality, a rifle's bullets are actually going to be bigger or at least the same as the pistol's. Yet while you can snap off one or two rounds from a pistol to down an enemy, the rifle might require bucketloads of shots to put down the same enemy. Obviously, this isn't the case in every game, but it's a trend I've noticed in quite a few. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't the rifle's bullets pack as much of a punch as the pistol's? It seems to be arbitrary balancing bullshit on the part of the developer. Good example of this phenomenon would be the assault rifle from Halo. You can use a few shots from the pistol (which somehow also has a scope) or use up 60 rounds from your rifle. Why does the rifle use plastic bbs instead of real bullets like the pistol? Hey, I'm not Bungie.

Okay, now let's talk about another gun, the shotgun. The shotgun in a lot of games seems to be insanely short ranged. Like, I've seen water hoses with more cohesion at range. Classic example is the shotgun from Doom 3. Now, this thing sprays buckshot so wide that it only has an effective range of about five feet. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating here, you just shouldn't use it beyond five feet. The spread is that bad. It just defies logic, why would anyone make a shotgun that only works out to five feet? An honorary member could also be the assault rifle from Halo. No, it's not a shotgun, but it also has an effective range of about five feet. Why would anyone use a rifle with spray that wide? Who knows.

In every sort of GTA open world game, all you have to do is jump into the car and push out the driver. They all have their doors unlocked for some reason. Is this really how people drive? They leave their doors unlocked? I sure as hell lock my doors when I drive my car. Do you? You should, precisely so you don't get someone kicking you to the curb and driving off in your ride. It's common sense, really. Also, if you grab a vacant car in a game, they'll always have their keys inside. No need to hot wire it or anything.

In RTSs, you'll have battlecruisers the same size as five or six infantry soldiers. How does that make any sense? The goddamn battlecruiser's supposed to be the size of the whole fucking map, right? Why would they make it a buildable unit and then make it look as big as six soldiers? How does that do justice to the battlecruiser? Frankly, it seems a bit insulting. There are probably four or five hundred people on board the battlecruiser. Maybe more. Maybe it's over a thousand, like the Galaxy class Enterprise-D. Yet here it is, floating about five feet over the battlefield and looking comparable to a squad of marines. Why would anyone think this was a good idea?

I recently watched a new gameplay video for AvP 3 and saw a marine being held down by an Alien, completely helpless, his gun nowhere to be seen. This pleased me, because it has always frustrated me how melee has gotten the shaft in first person games. Melee should be insanely scary, just because if the big bad monster actually makes it to you, you're not just going to get to shoot at it with your gun while it futilely claws away bits of your health and armor. If it gets into melee, it's going to knock your fucking gun out of your hands and proceed to rape your face off. That's what a melee enemy in a game should do. Yet it's never been portrayed this way. Both the previous AvP games just had you shooting aliens even at point blank range, negating their effectiveness. I'm glad to see that AvP 3 is gonna be different, giving melee enemies their teeth back. You should be scared of them surviving your ranged fire and getting into melee range. Guns never getting knocked out of your hands in FPSs was simply illogical and way too easy.

Avatar image for delta_ass
delta_ass

3776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 7

#1  Edited By delta_ass

Oh man, where to start...

Well first off, I just love those games where you can put away your gun, switch to a knife, and somehow... this allows you to run faster. Like, WTF? The gun didn't disappear, you're still carrying it somewhere on your body... why would holding a knife instead reduce your overall weight and allow you to move quicker? It makes absolutely no sense. Wasn't it the case in Counter-Strike? It's been a while, but I think it was. People on your team would immediately pull out their knives at the start of every match so they could leg it a bit quicker to the chokepoints. Absolutely retarded game mechanic. I think I saw the same thing happen in a Quick Look of Fallout 3 DLC. Hey, let's run faster because we put the gun back into our backpack and pulled out our knife. Yea, way to go... that makes a lot of fucking sense.

And what about the super weak flashlights we always get to use in games? Like, the ones that only work for 30 seconds before you have to turn em off to recharge? Let's see, what games have these weakass flashlights... I think Half-Life, FEAR, and AvP 2 just to name a few. Cmon, where do they buy these piece of shit flashlights? Are the batteries really that weak? They seem to work forever, but you just need to let them recharge every 30 seconds? What are you recharging them with? Is there some perpetual motion device you use to crank em up? Is that how those work? Cause I know regular flashlights can work for hours without needing their batteries replaced. How they didn't decide to buy those regular good ones for use in Black Mesa, whereever-the-hell-FEAR-is, and the Colonial Marine Corps, I just don't know. It's mind boggling.

Weapon balance in games is just silly sometimes. In almost every action game, you've got the pistol, then the rifle. Sometimes it's called an SMG. Now, the funny thing is... the pistol's bullet somehow seems a lot stronger then the rifle's. You'll pull out this pistol and it delivers a mighty semi automatic bang. Yet when you switch to this faster rifle or SMG, their bullets seem mighty underpowered. Like, the bullets are individually much weaker then the bullets in the humble pistol. When in reality, a rifle's bullets are actually going to be bigger or at least the same as the pistol's. Yet while you can snap off one or two rounds from a pistol to down an enemy, the rifle might require bucketloads of shots to put down the same enemy. Obviously, this isn't the case in every game, but it's a trend I've noticed in quite a few. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't the rifle's bullets pack as much of a punch as the pistol's? It seems to be arbitrary balancing bullshit on the part of the developer. Good example of this phenomenon would be the assault rifle from Halo. You can use a few shots from the pistol (which somehow also has a scope) or use up 60 rounds from your rifle. Why does the rifle use plastic bbs instead of real bullets like the pistol? Hey, I'm not Bungie.

Okay, now let's talk about another gun, the shotgun. The shotgun in a lot of games seems to be insanely short ranged. Like, I've seen water hoses with more cohesion at range. Classic example is the shotgun from Doom 3. Now, this thing sprays buckshot so wide that it only has an effective range of about five feet. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating here, you just shouldn't use it beyond five feet. The spread is that bad. It just defies logic, why would anyone make a shotgun that only works out to five feet? An honorary member could also be the assault rifle from Halo. No, it's not a shotgun, but it also has an effective range of about five feet. Why would anyone use a rifle with spray that wide? Who knows.

In every sort of GTA open world game, all you have to do is jump into the car and push out the driver. They all have their doors unlocked for some reason. Is this really how people drive? They leave their doors unlocked? I sure as hell lock my doors when I drive my car. Do you? You should, precisely so you don't get someone kicking you to the curb and driving off in your ride. It's common sense, really. Also, if you grab a vacant car in a game, they'll always have their keys inside. No need to hot wire it or anything.

In RTSs, you'll have battlecruisers the same size as five or six infantry soldiers. How does that make any sense? The goddamn battlecruiser's supposed to be the size of the whole fucking map, right? Why would they make it a buildable unit and then make it look as big as six soldiers? How does that do justice to the battlecruiser? Frankly, it seems a bit insulting. There are probably four or five hundred people on board the battlecruiser. Maybe more. Maybe it's over a thousand, like the Galaxy class Enterprise-D. Yet here it is, floating about five feet over the battlefield and looking comparable to a squad of marines. Why would anyone think this was a good idea?

I recently watched a new gameplay video for AvP 3 and saw a marine being held down by an Alien, completely helpless, his gun nowhere to be seen. This pleased me, because it has always frustrated me how melee has gotten the shaft in first person games. Melee should be insanely scary, just because if the big bad monster actually makes it to you, you're not just going to get to shoot at it with your gun while it futilely claws away bits of your health and armor. If it gets into melee, it's going to knock your fucking gun out of your hands and proceed to rape your face off. That's what a melee enemy in a game should do. Yet it's never been portrayed this way. Both the previous AvP games just had you shooting aliens even at point blank range, negating their effectiveness. I'm glad to see that AvP 3 is gonna be different, giving melee enemies their teeth back. You should be scared of them surviving your ranged fire and getting into melee range. Guns never getting knocked out of your hands in FPSs was simply illogical and way too easy.

Avatar image for asurastrike
asurastrike

2307

Forum Posts

192

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

#2  Edited By asurastrike

Conveniently placed red exploding barrels

Avatar image for deactivated-135098
deactivated-135098

333

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

In almost all FPS games, you can't see your feet when you look down.  Also, whenever you reload you only lose the bullets you expended, not the entire cartridge e.g. You shoot 1 bullet out of 50 and your cartridge holds 10 bullets; you reload and you now have 49 bullets, when logically you should only have 40. The only guns in a game I've seen actually reload the entire cartridge, even if there were live bullets left in it, were in Mafia.

Avatar image for pause
pause422

6350

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By pause422
@JacobForrest said:
" In almost all FPS games, you can't see your feet when you look down.  Also, whenever you reload you only lose the bullets you expended, not the entire cartridge e.g. You shoot 1 bullet out of 50 and your cartridge holds 10 bullets; you reload and you now have 49 bullets, when logically you should only have 40. The only guns in a game I've seen actually reload the entire cartridge, even if there were live bullets left in it, were in Mafia. "
I think near every Rainbow Six game did this..or used to it at least.
Avatar image for delta_ass
delta_ass

3776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 7

#5  Edited By delta_ass

Why would you lose the entire cartridge? When you reload, you don't just dump it on the ground...

Avatar image for buzz_clik
buzz_clik

7590

Forum Posts

4259

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#6  Edited By buzz_clik
@JacobForrest: My boss thinks I'm an idiot when I excitedly inform him of the fact you can see your feet in a game. A similar thing occurs when you cast real shadows in a game. The number of times I've stopped after a firefight to strafe back and forth in front of a spotlight is either too many or too few, depending on how sad you find this post.
Avatar image for berserker976
Berserker976

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By Berserker976

I agree that a lot of the things you mentioned are unrealistic, I don't think that makes them stupid though. The game designers probably look at real life, think "this won't be fun," and change it to something less believable but a little more enjoyable. Obviously this isn't the case for all the things mentioned, but it's something to keep in mind. 
 
Also, I may have an answer for your "speed enhancing knife" example. If you think about it as the person holding the weapon, it makes a bit of sense, wouldn't it be easier to run if you had both hands free instead of holding onto a weapon? 
 
Since I don't want this to be a completely negative post I'll contribute something. Main characters with bald or shaved heads. I hate that.

Avatar image for delta_ass
delta_ass

3776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 7

#8  Edited By delta_ass
@Berserker976 said:
If you think about it as the person holding the weapon, it makes a bit of sense, wouldn't it be easier to run if you had both hands free instead of holding onto a weapon? 
Hehe, well... you'd still have one hand holding the knife. So it's really only one hand free. And you'd have to be mighty careful while running with a knife, right? All that kindergarten scolding we used to get about running with scissors... it kinda applies here.
 
Main characters with bald or shaved heads... hm, I'll do you one better. What about main characters without any head protection? Take the guys in Doom 3, Quake 4, or Gears of War 1/2. All the main characters have completely unprotected noggins, while all the minor red shirts are wearing helmets. Yet those extras would probably have a better chance of survival in a warzone, since a headshot hitting a helmet is probably not going to be as lethal as one that hits bare forehead. The Warhammer 40K Space Marines also seem to believe that not wearing helmets is better for more important characters.
Avatar image for damian
Damian

1521

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Damian

Haha! This is exactly why in most shooters, I keep a solid hand gun (or two) and a shotty. I enjoy the unrealistic balance there. 
 
Timed flashlights piss me off, too. It would be really hard to find a flashlight that useless.

Avatar image for berserker976
Berserker976

558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By Berserker976
@Delta_Ass:
Yeah, aesthetically I may even prefer helmets to heads i.e. Master Chief (although maybe I'm in the minority there). Even though it's probably done so they can give the main characters faces it does seem pretty ridiculous to be walking around a warzone with you most vital point exposed. 
 
Another cliche I'm not particularly fond of is 3 phase boss battles (give or take a phase or two). I'm not sure how it became commonplace but it seems to be used everywhere, to the point where in some games you can actually predict when the next phase is coming up, in my opinion it makes boss battles feel bland and often times dissconnected from the rest of what may be an excellent game.
Avatar image for crusader8463
crusader8463

14850

Forum Posts

4290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

#11  Edited By crusader8463

There is one major cliche that ALWAYS pisses me off no matter in what medium be it games, movies or comics. When a person gets their clothes blown up or cut to shreds yet the parts that cover a mans dick or a womens tits never get blown away. What magical clothing do these people wear that keeps that part always covered when every other square inch is destroyed? And why not make the whole thing out of those parts? Then you would be invincible!

Avatar image for tylea002
Tylea002

2382

Forum Posts

776

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 6

#12  Edited By Tylea002
@crusader8463 said:
" There is one major cliche that ALWAYS pisses me off no matter in what medium be it games, movies or comics. When a person gets their clothes blown up or cut to shreds yet the parts that cover a mans dick or a womens tits never get blown away. What magical clothing do these people wear that keeps that part always covered when every other square inch is destroyed? And why not make the whole thing out of those parts? Then you would be invincible! "
I had that exact thought in X-Men 3. But come on, you know why.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9398c1300c7
deactivated-5f9398c1300c7

3570

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Convenient coincidences in a game.
 

EXAMPLE

 
Character1: Damn it, a dead end! What do we do! ?
 
Character2: Just fight the enemies off! Maybe something will happen!
 
The last enemy topples on a detonator and blows the wall open, destroying the once-dead end and creating an entrance.
Avatar image for crusader8463
crusader8463

14850

Forum Posts

4290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

#14  Edited By crusader8463
@Delta_Ass said:

What about main characters without any head protection? Take the guys in Doom 3, Quake 4, or Gears of War 1/2. All the main characters have completely unprotected noggins, while all the minor red shirts are wearing helmets. Yet those extras would probably have a better chance of survival in a warzone, since a headshot hitting a helmet is probably not going to be as lethal as one that hits bare forehead. The Warhammer 40K Space Marines also seem to believe that not wearing helmets is better for more important characters. "

As I'm sure you know, they do it because its hard for an audience to sympathize with a faceless thing like a helmet, that's why anyone who is there for any reason other then to die doesn't wear one. But i agree it annoys me to hell and i always hate characters like that because i honestly think they have less personality then the guys with the awesome helmets. Plus they never look as cool or bad ass, that's why i like what they are doing the the new Army of Two. When they fight the helmet is down but when they need to talk or show emotion it pops up, that way we get to have our cake and eat it too. Also if its an actor that i have seen before i don't see the character he is trying to portray but all the other ones he has done in that situation instead.
 
Also as we all learned along time ago keep the fucking helmet on, its there for a reason.
 
 
 
@Tylea002: i know why, but it doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off lol. Beside the obvious reasons of i just want to see tits, it honestly breaks any kind of realism they where going for in a scene for me. Because no matter how dramatic or serious the scene was that thought always pops in my head and breaks it for me.
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9398c1300c7
deactivated-5f9398c1300c7

3570

Forum Posts

105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@crusader8463 said:

" @Delta_Ass said:

What about main characters without any head protection? Take the guys in Doom 3, Quake 4, or Gears of War 1/2. All the main characters have completely unprotected noggins, while all the minor red shirts are wearing helmets. Yet those extras would probably have a better chance of survival in a warzone, since a headshot hitting a helmet is probably not going to be as lethal as one that hits bare forehead. The Warhammer 40K Space Marines also seem to believe that not wearing helmets is better for more important characters. "

As I'm sure you know, they do it because its hard for an audience to sympathize with a faceless thing like a helmet, that's why anyone who is there for any reason other then to die doesn't wear one. But i agree it annoys me to hell and i always hate characters like that because i honestly think they have less personality then the guys with the awesome helmets. Plus they never look as cool or bad ass, that's why i like what they are doing the the new Army of Two. When they fight the helmet is down but when they need to talk or show emotion it pops up, that way we get to have our cake and eat it too. Also if its an actor that i have seen before i don't see the character he is trying to portray but all the other ones he has done in that situation instead.
 
Also as we all learned along time ago keep the fucking helmet on, its there for a reason.
 
    @Tylea002: i know why, but it doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off lol. Beside the obvious reasons of i just want to see tits, it honestly breaks any kind of realism they where going for in a scene for me. Because no matter how dramatic or serious the scene was that thought always pops in my head and breaks it for me. "
If the players want to sympathize for marine characters, they have to have different colored or modded armors. An example being Halo3 ODST. All of the marines in your squad have different colored vests, so it's goling to be easy to distinguish who is BUCK or The Rookie.
Avatar image for crusader8463
crusader8463

14850

Forum Posts

4290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

#16  Edited By crusader8463

  @Tru3_Blu3: There just as to be some way to tell them apart from each other. Red vs Blue is the perfect example of that. They all look exactly the same except the colour of their armor is different. As long as there is some signifying markings for people to tell them apart at a glance then it should be fine for a game.

Avatar image for cube
Cube

4410

Forum Posts

1677

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 5

#17  Edited By Cube
@JacobForrest said:
" In almost all FPS games, you can't see your feet when you look down.  Also, whenever you reload you only lose the bullets you expended, not the entire cartridge e.g. You shoot 1 bullet out of 50 and your cartridge holds 10 bullets; you reload and you now have 49 bullets, when logically you should only have 40. The only guns in a game I've seen actually reload the entire cartridge, even if there were live bullets left in it, were in Mafia. "
Battlefield does it.
Avatar image for dredavis
dredavis

55

Forum Posts

117

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By dredavis

That thing about cars in GTA like games...well, it's all done for gameplay purposes, and no, I don't know a single person who drives with his doors locked.

Avatar image for soap
Soap

3774

Forum Posts

1811

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 29

#19  Edited By Soap
@DreDavis said:
"That thing about cars in GTA like games...well, it's all done for gameplay purposes, and no, I don't know a single person who drives with his doors locked. "

yeah exactly, a lot of it is to make the games you know... fun? 
 
If everything was as it was supposed to be in life, it would be so fucking boring/hard that no one would even bother.
Avatar image for joemarsden
JoeMarsden

340

Forum Posts

2109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By JoeMarsden
@Delta_Ass said:
" Why would you lose the entire cartridge? When you reload, you don't just dump it on the ground... "
@Delta_Ass: I'm pretty sure that if you look at almost every FPS reload animation, the magazine is either blatantly discarded (see the AK47 in Call of Duty 4), or put to the side/discreetly discarded.
Avatar image for penguindust
penguindust

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#21  Edited By penguindust
No Caption Provided
@crusader8463 said:

" There is one major cliche that ALWAYS pisses me off no matter in what medium be it games, movies or comics. When a person gets their clothes blown up or cut to shreds yet the parts that cover a mans dick or a womens tits never get blown away. What magical clothing do these people wear that keeps that part always covered when every other square inch is destroyed? And why not make the whole thing out of those parts? Then you would be invincible! "

And if the "black box" is the only thing that survives an airplane crash, why not make the whole plane out that that stuff?  And speaking of planes, what's the deal with airplane food? 
 
@JoeMarsden:
 
In theory, every player should be carrying around a bunch of magazines with only a few bullets left inside them.  I think I remember a game where this was actually the case although I can't remember the title.  It required the player to combine clips to create full magazines.  
 
I guess my questionable cliché is something found in most RPGs.  Someone please explain to me how every beast in the forest is carrying some gold?  In a lot of RPGs, go out and kill 20 pigs and you'll get some gold from each.  Does every critter in the wild have some strange diet that includes the currency of the world?  I know why developers do it that way, but wouldn't it be possible to give the player some other sort of drop that could be sold in town for the money?  Some games do take that route, so it's not unheard of but it's still easier to just add the gold reward at the moment of the kill. 
Avatar image for delta_ass
delta_ass

3776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 7

#22  Edited By delta_ass
@JoeMarsden said:
" @Delta_Ass said:
" Why would you lose the entire cartridge? When you reload, you don't just dump it on the ground... "
@Delta_Ass: I'm pretty sure that if you look at almost every FPS reload animation, the magazine is either blatantly discarded (see the AK47 in Call of Duty 4), or put to the side/discreetly discarded. "
Well, Call of Duty 4 isn't a great example of a realistic FPS...
 
Anyways, I just always assumed you tuck the used magazine back into a pouch somewhere when you reload. *shrug* 
 
And a game that doesn't just automatically combine magazines is Ghost Recon, IIRC. Not terribly sure about Rainbow Six, it's been too long since I've played it.
Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

#23  Edited By Video_Game_King

Squall/Rinoa-esque romances in JRPGs. We've all seen them just about everywhere. TWEWY....that's the only one I can name :(.

Avatar image for confinedbread
confinedbread

101

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By confinedbread

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet, but I'm sick of Moral Choice Systems. Take Fallout 3 for example, If I massacre a city of innocents, then give a bag of severed fingers to a vigilantly, I'm a saint in the eyes of the universe? How does that work?

Avatar image for agentboolen
agentboolen

1995

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By agentboolen

The presidents daughter has been kidnapped

Avatar image for tmthomsen
tmthomsen

2080

Forum Posts

66835

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

#26  Edited By tmthomsen
 In every sort of GTA open world game, all you have to do is jump into the car and push out the driver. They all have their doors unlocked for some reason. Is this really how people drive? They leave their doors unlocked? I sure as hell lock my doors when I drive my car. Do you?
 
Seriously...?
Avatar image for ediscool
EdIsCool

1140

Forum Posts

112

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

#27  Edited By EdIsCool

Push x to jump I mean come on!!

Avatar image for torus
torus

1106

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By torus

I'm fine with a lot of these- more realism would make it less fun. However, stuff like exploding red barrels... that's just laziness. 
 
[edit] Oh, and crates that happen to have items that you need in them.