Worst and most common design flaws

"Design" when used in the context of a game is about what's done deliberately.

If it was within my power I would have your right to communicate revoked immediately.

How to Survive 2, Stardew Valley

Cities: Skylines, Plague Inc Evolved

...

Super Meat Boy

Why is that bad? It saves in case you forget too.

Mortyr 2093-1944

Fallout 4 takes the cake fore worst design decision ever. The default button for melee attack is left alt. The default button for "throw grenade" is to hold left alt.

It allows savescumming. I don't mind it in between levels or at checkpoints though.

...

...

in addition

Completely unacceptable without any sort of defense.

Fuck every single lazy, incompetent piece of shit developer who does this right in the asshole with a reciprocating saw

...

...

...

...

At least we have AHK.

...

Fuck you Dragon's Dogma.

Here is one:

Something the new Pokemon games did right.

I love you, God Hand, but you still fucked up.

VII confirmed they beef up all the enemy stats just to fuck you over.

That's fucking genious.

Ironically they only implemented that feature to prevent box cloning, but yeah it's pretty neat.

You know what would be better, though? MORE THAN ONE FUCKING SAVE SLOT

...

...

...

Who invented it, why and how do we murder that person as revenge?

...

Fallout 4 takes the cake with fucking LOADING SCREENS time tied your framerate.

That's more impressive than anything. I couldn't even get mad at it because it was just so baffling.

...

...

What game is that.

i never liked the idea of one save and have to delete it for making a new game

Multiple save slots is retarded for a game like Pokemon. Defeats the purpose of the games being about monster collecting, trading, and battling.

Fuck you Divinity II

No one is forcing you to save scum

Am I the only one who's not in any way, shape or form fazed by them, and I'm not talking about the FNAF shitty teddy bear toy "jumpscares", (my five year old daughter played that shitty game over her friends house once and said "that's not scary, what's the point in that game if it's not scary?"), but I'm talking about general properly made and scary screamers that are well placed in games that are designed to catch you out when you least expect it to… It still doesn't seem to scare me, I'm probably just too old for it. Horror games just don't give me that adrenaline rush and feeling of "shit's going down!" like they used to… Nowadays it's all just gimmicky garbage with pretty (well actually, ugly and thus "scary") effects and graphics and slap some edgy shit all over it and call it a "horror" game because it might trigger some jewtuber to play it and overreact and pretend that it's "mega scary you guise!" so them and the developers get shekels.

Can anyone give me some decent horror games that don't fail at scaring people? No bullshit like "edgy gore and blood" (that shouldn't faze anyone except the faggiest of cucks) but something that really is stressful to play and something that really activates your flight or fight response and gets the heart pounding. If I see some generic "OOPSY DAISY YOU LOST HERE'S A SILLY FACE ON YOUR MONITOR WITH SOME LOUD NOISE IN THE BACKGROUND!" again I'm going to shove my dick up a game developer's soft butt angrily thrusting in and out while screaming and firing a rifle into the air.

...

Better yet, a system that flags you for saying too many swear words and slaps you on the wrist by banning for you a couple of days as if you were a child

To me screamers don't scare me either, but they don't exactly do wonders to my heart, and I seriously hate it when a non horror games tosses a jump scare out of nowhere. One of these days my heart is going to fucking fail because of these smartasses.

Fuck you Divinity II

>send 2 messages full of asterisks like this "* ** * * * * "

...

...

I miss those days, too bad all the decent trolling communities has defunct into plebbit tier shenanigans and nothing fun ever happens now…

...

...

I feel the same way sometimes.
I can remember one case in particular during Bioshock Infinite in an insane asylum where you have to press a button and as soon as you turn around you're greeted by that fucking horn head. My heart skipped two beats.

Silent Hill series, Penumbra series, Clocktower Series, Fatal Frame series, Dead Space 1 and 2, Eternal Darkness, Haunting Grounds and last but not least Pathologic.

Lone survivor was kinda tense too.

The game I'm making

Not allowing manual saving is a design flaw, and was the meat complaint of the OP.

pretty sure even Halo didn't do this. there's no excuse.

...

...

>find out years later that watching a fucking cutscene from the main menu creates a clean save to start at the exact point the cutscene ends

Would it really be that hard to make the game rotate between a certain amount of save slots?

Bonus:

Unrelated complaint:

Something similar happened to me with STALKER. I lost several saves to that.

The recent battlefield games actually do this really well. They keep track of whether a bullet is in the chamber or not, if you have a round in the chamber you skip chambering a round and your reload is faster. You can also switch weapons as soon as the magazine is in the gun/the round has been chambered without losing the reload. Also the ammo in magazine updates the instant you can switch weapons, so with practice you can generally shave ~.25 - .5 seconds off every reload. You can also interrupt tube fed shotguns during reload if the chamber is loaded.

...

WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT

...

...

At least it punishes save-scumming

...

That's something that Black2 and White2 fucked up.

Correction: Easy and Hard modes are unlocked after your friend beats the main story. If you don't know somebody else who plays pokemon, then you can never play hard mode.

...

Call of Juarez Gunslinger did that right.

Play Mario Kart 8 without items or just mushrooms on 250cc. It's an incredible skillful arcade racer.

...

Games that start differently each time you start a new game are really fucking rare nowadays

It's always the same stupid fucking scripted shit where you know what's gonna happen next at each exact moment
It's these little things that ruins games for me completely

PS1 and NES games started you from the same spot each time but you were instantly in the action, you pressed "Start" and you were already playing the game.
Now it's 5-15 minutes long cutscene, prologue, tutorial or something, and by that time you're already bored and asking yourself, why'd you decide to play THIS again?

Thanks Aurora 4x.

...

It's also a bitch and a half when you forget to save for a while and then die to some low level encounter that got lucky.

...

That's not Holla Forums, that's /r9k/.

I'd rather be able to both save whenever convenient and have occasional autosaves in case I forget, and just make the choice not to savescum. Just because the game allows you to do something doesn't mean you have to.

Fucking this. Why punish me for succeeding? I mean when it's IRL taxes there's at least some excuse that they need the money for something.

Shit-ton of unskippable intros in game is usually a great way to know it's gonna be absolute dogshit.

I mean i dont think there's more than handful of games that can prove me otherwise and even those are debatable depending on your tastes in vidya.

Now that I think about it, that is a sign the game was only half assedly ported to PC. Long unskippable intros are also often followed by a "press [START] to continue".

...

Crystal Chronicles had a couple of unskippable cutscenes. The intro was REALLY long, too.

That game was fun, even if you were alone, but the need for FOUR GBAs with cables was a bit much.

...

The only system I really have any corruption issues with anymore is the fucking Vita. You'd think the proprietary memory cards would be free of issues rather than more prone to them than normal given their ridiculous pricing, but it seems like something as simple as loading a save too quickly after exiting sleep mode can cause problems.

Just kill me now

...

Thank fuck Castle Crashers fixed that shit.

I still haven't played Dark Souls because of that. It's so lazy, it's insulting.

...

...

But that's how it works for everyone, mate. "Jumpscares" do not and have not ever scared people. What they do is startle people to a degree which varies from person to person. Jumpscares are to Horror as word-play is to comedy: It can be executed well from time to time, but for every good usage there are a thousand shitty puns you have to wade through.

Your fault for being an idiotic pussy.

Lack of console commands or making using them unintuative.

Take CK2 or EU4, when I open the console it should automatically show me province IDs, country IDs, unit IDs. I should be able to just type in 'event help' and receive a full list.

I just want to paint a canvas with as little trouble as possible

It is like stealing a gun from a police officer, threatening him with his own gun and then giving it back expecting not to get arrested, you are retarded for expecting anything else.

So you mean it's the standard MO of a liberal trying to kill Trump?

It's not even that hard. Even someone as bad at programming as I am could pull it off.

As much my eye candy needs for improvement, even on this current year, yet even the source engine 2013 does this via command out the box.
Exactly how can devs miss to insert this important useful eye candy.

All it got me to do is made me methodically wipe out everybody, even civilians.

In skyrim shit doesn't make sense either. You beat a motherfucker, might have even taken his weapon. And he still attacks you, even though you will clearly kill him this time.

Well why not, it's almost ending.

What mission and clip of it please.

Tough shit, play enough of SWAT 4 and you learn not to trust any perps until you've cuffed them

...

...

>it doesn't

...

...

Impossible creatures. such a fun game. awful multiplayer.

It does if it gives a definitive advantage to winning. The fact that the developers were to shit to finder a method that doesn't break the games difficulty makes it a design flaw.

...

Get some self control.
Can you do themed playthroughs of games, or do you always feel the need to use the most efficient minmax builds?
And why are you so competitive about "winning" a single player game, anyway?

It's not about winning, it's that I'm given a very easy and full proof method to advance in a game with no penalty. The fact that somebody should intentionally limit themselves in order to not break a game just means they're choosing to make the game harder for themselves. Which is fine, but doesn't that speak volumes against how shitty the mechanic they're choosing not to use is?

And even if I chose not to save scum that still wouldn't fix the problem. It's still there. Simply not choosing to indulge on it doesn't fix it. You can't deny it's a poorly implemented mechanic even if I choose to use it or not. What exactly does a game have to gain by allowing me to save at any time as much as I want?

So what's your point?

Yes it does, because you're not using it. Ergo, you are not using the mechanic to break the game. It sounds more the autosaving is the problem, since it's pretty redundant to have it when you can save whenever you want. Checkpoints and autosaves are outdated anyway.

The ability to plan for yourself and have player urgency. When you want to be shackled to a developer's whims when they give you more control is beyond me.

...

...

>Explode

...

That's how all beat-em-up games used to be back in the day.

That you're taking yourself out of the game and pushing a button to make sure any mistake you make can be retried over and over again. Essentially breaking your argument against making it "not just about winning".

Didn't you just contradict yourself? If you're not saving on your own watch and if autosaving and checkpoints are outdated then how are you saving? If you're going to concede that being able to save at any point allows save scumming is a mechanic that can be broken then why wouldn't you have autosaving and checkpoints? And if you're going to say that "just because I don't use it" relinquishes it as a flaw then you could say the same about any mechanic or flaw with a game. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it can't be criticized or called out for being shit.

Yea sure let me just play through a Mario level. Except this time I can save after each jump. I'm sure nobody will actually DO that though.

It's even more retarded to assume that a player should have enough self control and not just break the game because the people who made the game blew off actually putting effort in to fixing it. If you just gave the player a giant gun that essentially killed everything would you think that most people wouldn't use it? Letting the player plan and progress on their own whims is fine but you should do that through gameplay. Not a poorly implemented save system. Otherwise there's no reason to improve on the actual game.

Convenience? If I want to take a break or need to do something else, I don't want to have to worry about the game deciding when I'm allowed to stop.

Main save is only one for online, backup is for replays.
Wow look, main problem gone.

What a sad miserable little man you are.

You could always just go towards the nearest save point. I doubt a functional and well designed game would have one that you couldn't reach one in at least 5-10 minutes. Though this depends on the type of game. I would also argue that a well designed functional game is more important than giving the player the opportunity to break the games flow and design.

Either way you should sort of assume that by around the time you want to get off the game you would plan ahead of time to know when you were going to get off. If I was playing Dark Souls I wouldn't leave a bonfire to get the next when I was sure I was going to quit in the next 5 minutes.

You and I both know damn well the only reason they arbitrarily lock you to a single save slot is to attempt strongarming you into buying multiple copies if you want more saves.

I like Bayonetta but shit man, you fight that wind angle like four times with each encounter becoming more and more trivial. Also, some of the Megaman Zero games do this to.

Jesus, how fucking casual can one statement get?

The only purpose of being able to save absolutely anywhere in most genres is for the sake of savescumming. Checkpoints and specific save areas allow for developers to design the challenge of the game around the player's ability to clear areas and keep themselves safe from harm for periods of time. They must be able to conquer a whole chunk of a challenge all at once, not simply save every microsecond they progress and bang their head on a wall until they "succeed".

This is also the reason why lives systems will never be truly outdated. Despite their archaic original purpose as a system to keep people putting money into arcade machines, they also serve the purpose of not letting one simply fail endlessly at a task until they manage to brute force it. You must instead learn how to fucking play the game and better your abilities to conquer the challenges ahead of you, because if you fail too many times, you won't simply be able to load a quicksave and try again. Instead you must prove your skills again.

...

Fuck you Condemned. Shitty level design like this is why objective markers have caught on.

And anyone else complaining about only support for 360 controllers, just use x360ce. It's not perfect, but it works for me

...

I've yet to understand the game design reason for including a sniper character.

The only thing it can possibly do to a game is make it less fun for everyone else that isn't playing as the sniper. And even then the person controlling said sniper is in one of the most boring situations possible.

Yet every single dev keeps doing it.

Snipers are c o o l in theory, and people want to feel c o o l in theory. Most of the time people get snipers is because it makes them feel cool, even if they don't have much fun with it.

Only difference is using snipers in instagib gamemodes. Now that's fun.

ARPGs fucking suck. The genre is actually defined by bad design decisions. It's about actively designing the game to have uninteresting level design, uninteresting enemies, uninteresting combat, uninteresting story, uninteresting abilities, and uninteresting weapons. I don't understand why people keep making them.

I really liked the two Siren games for the PS2.

I think both of you have played too many console games where you're shackled to a developer's idea of what a challenge is. Save scumming doesn't make you a better player but it's really infantile that you need someone to coddle you with checkpoints because you lack self-control and can't take responsibility on how much you save. You can yell git gud all yo want but all it comes out as is I NEED THE DEVELOPER TO TELL WHERE I CAN AND CAN'T SAVE BECAUSE I CANT MANAGE THINGS MYSELF. Also don't forget games that allow to save whenever you can are inherently more challenging because if you're feeling really skillful you can forego saving at all and beat a level or an entire game in one go. Right there the game with saving anywhere is inherently more challenging because there player isn't relying on checkpoints to babysit you.

You guys really need to play more open ended games. I suggest you start with something like Deus Ex.

Save scumming is a player issue, not a game issue.
If the player abuses it, that's on them

You can emulate this in any game, it's called closing the game or flipping the power switch. That's not exactly revolutionary. As far as actual in-game versions of that go, Shovel Knight had a system where you could destroy checkpoints for your own gain if you believed you could get to the next one or the end of the level without the safety net, which was a nice idea. Yet there was still no babying method of being able to save in front of whatever point you couldn't get past so you could slam your head at it repeatedly.

Open-ended games don't work with a checkpoint system, obviously. You'd need something closer to a save station which accomplishes basically the same goal.

I believe it depends on the game in question. Sometimes, checkpoints/ limited saves add something to the game, sometimes they don't. For example, in XCOM, reloading any chunk of play time gives you a second opportunity at a challenge with drastic consequences that DONT result in a game over. These situations thrive in a limited save/ iron man mode setting.

Here's another good one

...

...

...

If you want to choose to save after your own method and ruleset of playing then be my guest. My argument isn't for the players choices on when to save, it's for the games design itself. I can play every game you mention to me (most of which I have) like Dues Ex or STALKER but that doesn't remove savescumming as a flaw.

I'll reiterate again though, the fallacy with save scumming isn't the player not having self control, it's about the flaw existing to allow players to subvert the games intended design in pacing, tone, and overall challenge through a system that the players are allowed to abuse.

>Also don't forget games that allow to save whenever you can are inherently more challenging because if you're feeling really skillful you can forego saving at all and beat a level or an entire game in one go
You can do the exact same thing with a checkpoint system by not using them. There's 0 argument in this regard unless it has an autosave system. Most games allow you to turn this off though.

Dues Ex doesn't exactly help your case here. I can easily save scum in that game just as easily as somebody could just set up a system for saving through another mechanic.

Your argument for this save system is entirely preferential and opinion based without actualy having any functional use in the actual game. A game shouldn't have to sacrifice solid and well intended design for accessibility and ease of use. Putting a checkpoint in to your game isn't a statement against liberating your play-style. Your play-style should be reflected in the actual gameplay and your gameplay shouldn't be reflected through a save system.

Your viewing this problem with tunnel vision, as if you expected everybody else to play the same, self controlled way. Self control shouldn't be an excuse for overcoming a fundamental problem with the game. Good design and choices on the developers part should. Self control should be something that the actual game should teach through gameplay rather than meta-design.

You could just reinstall the game. That or it might have ini settings.

fuck you G.U. you did that three times in a row

I feel you user, I always love to see enemies get knocked over by there bigger stronger allies, makes me think of Hannibal.

That's your fault for playing skyrim user.

...

But you ARE arguing against player choice in when to save. That's your entire point. You are calling it a flaw that people can choose to save more frequently than you like, and saying that the game should be designed to prevent players from having that choice. You are claiming we have tunnel vision and expect everyone to play the same way. Yet you are the one who is complaining that people are playing a non-competitive game (or a game where all competition is external) "wrong" and that the game should stop them. I fail to see why restricting the player is so important to you.

Except now it's discrete. You are no longer deciding for yourself what is a good length between saves; the devs are still choosing for you.
No, it shouldn't. But your system requires that. All checkpoints will do is introduce a level of metagaming where you try to figure out where the game will let you save next. I don't want to base my tactics around when the game will let me save; I just want to play.

As an example, I'd like to know how you would redesign New Vegas without manual or auto saving.

Also, out of curiosity, do you oppose allowing players access to console commands? They are far more ripe for abuse than savescumming, after all.

One of the greatest things is when you can watch two or more enemies fighting each other because they hit themselves.

I fucking hate when the game doesn't let me go through a path that is clearly possible to use, like an entire fucking street. Even if I'm not going to do anything there, I want to go until I see something that really stops me from continuing.

Am I the only one that's seriously tired of jumpscares, they aren't even scary half the time.

...

...

Ahem.

The Romans actually managed to push Hanibal out during the first war. They slaughtered tens of thousands of Romans, but eventually they changed their tactics and his army couldn't be sustained.

I'll never understand why people were so lenient on Mikami for this shit. Are we on the same page?

...

...

wait, how does that even work?

Yeah this is the one. The "return to survival-horror" that a handful of people ate up.

...

...

...

The only reason I bought that Akiba's Trip game, tbh. Older girl best girl.

Is it just me, or are devs getting lazier and lazier with optimization as the years go on?

No no, lazy implies that they know what they are doing

The last bit is horrendous since I can't play Rome or Medieval II anymore because of it. I simply can't accept the fucking retarded muddy upscaled oval UI, even if the games are both excellent and I played tons of them on 1024x768.

Playing windowed on a smaller resolution isn't an option because 1024x768 is just such a fucking small resolution on my 1440p monitor.

Can't you just scale the image to fill the screen?

that last one is dying out, but in the sense that stats are a joke in modern games

There's a clear difference between restriction and developer intent. In an ideal game you would be able to save at any time without it feeling forced and allow the players arbitrary whim, but also allow the system to not be abused and scummed to death by saving every 12 seconds. Since those 2 ideals overlap each other in logic they're not possible.
I would rather a game that takes control of your save system to prevent players from abusing the function than have a small minority of those players NOT abuse the function because they were autistic enough to show self restraint when they clearly shouldn't need to.

I never said that. I said that play-style isn't relative to save mechanics and are separate to the actual gameplay. And the "self-control" aspect about saving is better utilized towards the actual gameplay than the actual save system.

In the same way that a big menu showing your previous saves are discrete? Or a line of words at the top of your screen reaffirming your quick save went through is less discrete? Save systems are never going to be discrete because players need the "ok" from the system to make sure their save went through. Even then games with save points have been finding highly discrete and aesthetically pleasing save systems that are usually very recognizable yet very natural in the environment. If you want discrete then often save-point functions are even more discrete than the other system.

It depends on the game. But if it bothers you that much then don't use checkpoints. It highly depends on the game you're playing. Anything is better than being able to save all the time though so a system that uses it in another way is usually pretty good.

Sleeping saves the game. There done. You can't save in the middle of a battle because enemies are around, thus removing any incentive to save-scum to beat them. And you can't fast travel away to go save and come back to beat them. Likely the last time you saved in a battle has been a while so the incentive to not die and think more strategically will also be heightened. And having a place to sleep would also add to the importance of a player home. The only thing I could say against the system is that the game likes to throw beds all over the place because the level and map design tends to be shit. But Fallout hasn't been any good since 3 so I wouldn't really say ANY system of saving is top notch because of how shit the games tend to be.

Using CC essentially means you've given up on playing the game seriously and want to fuck around. The best thing games can do to prevent this are to hide the use of them in the options menu but even then I highly recommend most games never include them in an obvious way or at all.

...

I meant hasn't been any good since before 3. My bad.

...

...

...

Platinum/Clover seemed to really like making fight a boss multiple times or having a forced boss rush to pad out the game.

There a boss in Okami where you have to fight 3 times, first near the middle 1/3 of the game, 2nd near the end and then 3rd at a forced boss rush shortly after the 2nd one.

Really feel like the maximum amount of times I want to fight a boss in game is at least twice thanks to stuff like this (and Zelda:SS).

Does any Stealth game have really good A.I.?

That's impressively incompetent.

Agree.

Who thought this was a good idea, if I have 3 people with a chance of reviving me I should be given the chance of one of them doing so.

Fuck you XCOM.

...

I doubt we'll come to an agreement on this. I view savescumming as flaw in the playstyle, while you view it being possible as a flaw in the game. I think of it as somewhat similar to the debate on firearms; it is not an issue with guns themselves that leads to violence but rather with the people (or >people) that use them for violence, and so the guns themselves should not be what gets banned. Likewise, if people lack the self control to choose what is the best playstyle for them, that is their problem and not the game's.

And I STILL don't quite understand the key part of this discussion: Why does it matter if other people savescum? It is exclusively a single-player issue. It cannot affect you in any way. If savescumming bothers you so much, decide not to do it. I just can't understand why you are so concerned with how other people who cannot interact with you play the game.

Discrete != discreet. What I meant was that with checkpoints you can only choose whether you want to save at a specific moments, and not decide for yourself what is a reasonable time between saves. Furthermore, devs are not perfect, and placement of checkpoints adds another element for which they must balance. Well placed checkpoints are one thing, but poorly placed checkpoints can be a significant source of frustration.

But your argument has been that checkpoints should be the only way to save.
Absolutely agreed. I'm not even trying to say that there are no games for which checkpoints are the best system. But there are also games where manual saving is much preferable.
If you interpreted my argument as being in favour of always allowing you to save, then I apologize for not making it clearer. I am not saying that I should be able to save at every moment. Being in dialogue, having enemies nearby, and so on should of course prevent saving. But within reasonable restrictions I want to be able to make the decision myself.

But how does that work? Can you use beds in buildings and such that you haven't cleared yet? If so, that seems like an easy way to ruin a save; you could easily end up waking up to an encounter you now realize aren't ready for, and have no way to avoid it because you saved the instant before it appeared. If not, then you can easily be stuck with a half hour or more between opportunities to save. You list the player home's bed as being of strategic importance, so I suspect you intend the latter case. Not everyone has the option of playing to the nearest half hour. Most people will need to be able to save and leave a game with a couple of minutes' notice, for any number of possible distractions.
One of the advantages you list for sleepsaving is that you can't save in the middle of battle, but you can't do that anyway, nor should you be able to.

Have you ever called someone else out for playing easy mode? How about for looking up a walkthrough, or otherwise bypassing challenges by taking the easier way out? Think about the number of people who do this while playing games, and the feedback they later give developers as a result.

This is true, but it's something that should be expected of the developer. There's also usually safeguards to that.

Then stop playing if you know the game's general save pacing and think you won't make it to the next point where you can do it. Surely you can do something else for the following 10 minutes if you needed to so urgently walk out the door anyways.

Before it became OP garbage with its Power Shot ability, I think Hawken did a great job with its sniper class.

That sounds very reasonable. Much of my issue with sniper weapons/classes/characters comes from their inherent nature as something you have to deal with in any even somewhat open area where you are in constant danger of being killed in one or two hits regardless of what anyone else does to you and thus being able to lock off entire areas by themselves existing. Making a sniper only capable of lowering a target's health so that their team can finish them or simply securing a kill has a lot more place in design.

Yeah that pisses me off. I've never played the older xcoms, but Nucom was probably the worst attempt at a turn based game.

This is what the snipers in APB were like as well. The big heavy sniper rifle would bring people down to one shot health, but the rate of fire was slow enough it couldn't kill people by itself. It was a fantastic support weapon though.

This bugged me out to no end.

What is the fucking point of making them limp when low on health if it doesn't add anything to the game?

it sells, why try harder

...

Its a pet peeve and not a big issue but for fucks sake it's a whole lot harder to scroll through resolutions like that. Fuck off.

No it's to force you to play the game again and again for that perfect 100% save and make you buy a walkthrough.

guess the game

I don't even like playing games.

Postal 2

Fuck you for reminding me of that shitty flash game

Not if you like having fun. If you have realistic proportions the game becomes really boring just slinking in the bushes innawoods and infiltrating a base would be all but impossible in many circumstances and it'd end up like Far Cry 2 where you just run in and kill everything.

...

of ocurse you're British

Just a thought: you'd probably make a good sentry.